In August 1996, 250 people watched as Kenya’s highest Catholic cleric, Cardinal Maurice Otunga, ceremonially set fire to boxes full of condoms and copies of “safe sex” pamphlets. In the face of the rapidly-mounting African AIDS crisis, the Vatican had responded by saying basically that while HIV and AIDS might be bad, the use of contraceptives was worse — and it will always be impossible to know how many were condemned to die miserable, wasting deaths as a result.
The Catholic Church, which I was baptized into during an event I cannot be expected to remember, is rarely stranger than when it takes up arms against contraceptives. Since Pope Paul VI’s controversial 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae especially, the Catholic hierarchy has been intransigent on the subject of artificial prophylaxis, even when it is clearly the much lesser of two (granting this momentarily for the sake of argument) “evils.”
For some reason, though, it still struck me as odd to see the Catholic reaction to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ announcement last week that, as part of the Affordable Care Act, health insurance plans will be required, as of August 2013, to provide contraceptives at no cost to beneficiaries. The HHS ruling exempts religious institutions proper, such as churches, but will require religiously-affiliated schools, social outreach groups, and other organizations to provide health insurance to their employees that includes free contraceptives.
Cue the hierarchical Sturm und Drang:
On Sunday, [Atlanta-]area priests read a letter to parishioners during masses, in which [Archbishop Wilton D.] Gregory called the decision a “direct attack on our religious freedom and our First Amendment rights.”
“As a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” Gregory said in the letter. “The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.”
In this righteous rant posted Tuesday, Balloon Juice’s John Cole excoriates Ross Douthat’s response in the New York Times Sunday Review, which he quotes:
Ponder that for a moment. In effect, the Department of Health and Human Services is telling religious groups that if they don’t want to pay for practices they consider immoral, they should stick to serving their own co-religionists rather than the wider public. Sectarian self-segregation is O.K., but good Samaritanism is not. The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying “no Protestants need apply.”
Douthat goes on:
Critics of the administration’s policy are framing this as a religious liberty issue, and rightly so. But what’s at stake here is bigger even than religious freedom. The Obama White House’s decision is a threat to any kind of voluntary community that doesn’t share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls the health care bureaucracy.
This construction of “religious freedom” is just weird special pleading. But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes to contraception, the Church and its allies seem willing to take an “any port in a storm” approach.
The claim is that Catholic employers will be forced – forced! - to pay for medical services they believe are immoral, and will therefore be placing their immortal souls in danger of estrangement from God’s grace.
Here’s why they don’t need to worry: The decision to use or not to use contraception is the individual’s. For employers, it is their duty — not only under the new law, but also inasmuch as they desire to act justly to their employees — to provide health coverage to the people who work for them. Health insurance plans, now, must provide coverage for free-of-cost contraceptives. Employers qua employers are not obligated to make moral decisions for their employees, particularly when it comes to matters of health. Any moral culpability for the use of contraceptives — and here again, I’m only granting this so as to make the Catholic counter-argument — rests with the persons deciding to avail themselves of this coverage, not the group paying into the health insurance plan.
This much should be clear from John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical, Veritatis splendor, which, while repeating the Church’s condemnation of the use of contraceptives as morally wrong under all circumstances, also reaffirms the role of conscience in the moral actor.
Aside from all this though, a choice made under coercion is no choice at all. This has two implications: One, since employers must provide health insurance that covers contraception or face fines, they cannot be held morally culpable; and two, denying employees the opportunity to make their own moral decision when it comes to using contraceptives takes away their ability to make what the Church would consider to be a morally good choice on their own.
Put simply: being a “good Catholic” requires a person to behave in a way that comports with the teachings of the Church. It does not require a person to attempt to make civic law reflect those magisterial prohibitions, or to prevent the free exercise of conscience by people who do not share their religious convictions. Paying into employee health insurance is the right thing for employers to do. It’s up to Catholic employees to make moral decisions about contraception on their own.
What strikes me as particularly odd about this furor is that it’s coming from some of the same quarters where fits were pitched over the notion of “government bureaucrats” coming between patients and their doctors in what Douthat derisively calls “the era of Obamacare.” Implicit in this charge is the corollary idea that a patient’s dealings with her doctor should be the business of the patient and the doctor alone (a relationship the Affordable Care Act preserves, of course). Imaginary meddling bureaucrats must be kept out of the examining room, it seems — but not busybody bosses who want to make ex ante reproductive decisions for their employees.
Here again is the problem so many of us have with the stridently faithful: Not content with practicing their faith in peace, they are convinced that “religious freedom” means having the ability to make religion-based decisions for the rest of us.
To quote a colleague vis a vis “conscience clauses”: “I really think it’s time to start the First United Church of Do Your Fucking Job, Assholes.”
Can I join that one?
Also, you ABL folks are KILLING with the accompanying art today! (Except I’ll be humming “Every Sperm is Sacred” for the rest of the day.)
Michael Palin > Sarah Palin
Confession: I thought that’s who John McCain had chosen when it was first announced. Needless to say, I was confoozled.
Definitely would have been better if he had.
Between telling the disciples to pray in private to cussing out the Pharisees for trying to dodge taxes, Jesus was pretty much against Theocracy. Funny how his followers keep trying to impose it today.
Catholic employers can impose their religious views on their employees by denying them access to practical preventative health care, but it’s a violation of religious freedom to require such options?
Bitch, please!
It reminds me of the “Preventing me from discriminating against gay people is discrimination against my religious beliefs” argument, which really was a thing that existed. And probably still does.
As a practicing Catholic, I’d just like to say that I am sick and fucking tired of other Catholics being complete and utter horse’s asses. Especially when they’re in Church leadership and therefore more likely to get press coverage.
I’m Catholic and I think this is a ridiculous position. Some higher ranking priests have already shut down shelters for similar state-mandated reasons and it’s absurd. It is not your job, as a Catholic, to force everyone you encounter to bow down and worship the same way you worship. Refusing to provide medical help/shelter/food/protection because you don’t believe in contraception is teetering on the brink of judging other people. How’s that old line go? Judge not lest ye be judged? Who are you to tell that non-Catholic that they have to follow Catholic rules?
Much like the Republicans, I would be so happy if the male Catholic priests would stop setting up camp inside women’s health issues to claim them in the false name of morality. No, that’s not the reason. You want Catholic women pregnant to expand the Church. Those rules were made when Christians were fed to the lions for believing in Christ (more Catholics=less likelihood of the Church dying out) and really shouldn’t apply anymore. All Catholic sex rules boil down to this: if you’re doing anything sexual that cannot result in pregnancy, you’re a horrible sinner.
Pretty much Robert, sex that doesn’t result in planned children is basically fornication.
I am marrying into a hardcore Catholic family. Now, I love my fiancee and her family, but I would personally be baffled about a bunch of celibate old single guys telling me anything about marriage and family. At least in protest churches, mosques and synagogue – a holy man (or woman) says something about marriage – he or she is speaking from experience.
How in the world is refusing to subsidize something that the Church believes to be gravely, seriously wrong (land-you-in-Hell wrong) related to not providing shelter, food, and clothing??? Many of the organizations that will be affected by this ALREADY provide health insurance for their employees, and many of them are charitable organizations that provide exactly those very things… food, clothing, shelter, medical and financial assistance for unwed mothers, etc. They just don’t want to directly financially subsidize something they believe to be immoral. If the employee chooses to do so, fine, that’s on their conscience based upon their own understanding of morality. But members of the Church ought not be forced to do something against THEIR consciences, either. And now they will be penalized for it.. which will mean that much less money going to those very things they’re trying to do… food and clothe those who need it, for example.
I’m a fallen-away Catholic-turned-atheist (yeah, how original, I know). But I still have warm feelings about the many fine Catholics I’ve met who are deeply committed to efforts in service of ending war and poverty, and who care about those issues (you know, the ones Jesus talked about a lot) far more than sexual “morality” issues (contraception, gay marriage, etc.) Too bad more of the Catholics who are actually following Christ’s teachings aren’t represented in the higher echelons of the hierarchy.
It may be hackneyed, Kerry, but that describes me, too. I went through my “militant, asshole atheist” phase and now I can go with my family to mass while I’m home and remember the things I liked about the Church.
Also, I was pleasantly surprised at many of the elements in Benedict XVI’s encyclical on social justice, “Caritas in veritate.”
The Catholic church is run by a bunch of deluded old white guys. American Catholic women, at least, have been practicing various forms of BC for years. They just do it on the QT.
I know for a fact that my Mama, a devout Latina Catholic, told my Dad he better start using condoms or find a girlfriend after bonus baby number nine was born because she wasn’t washing any more diapers! Since my Papi was very much in love with Mama he got the condoms. (This was before the pill which I’m sure she would have taken if they had it.) She told me once: “Bah these priests know nothing of love and passion.”
As a practicing Catholic (as in, one who follows the precepts of the Church), I would just like to be a voice for those of Catholic women who DON’T practice artificial birth control, because we see it for what the Church sees it for… something that tries to “fix” something that’s not broken. My fertility is a gift, as is my husband’s. We are not merely animals, but rational human beings whose obligation and profoundly beautiful call in marriage is to give freely of this gift to each other… we can’t hold back one part of ourselves while trying to give the rest. When it is prudent to NOT conceive a child, we don’t have intercourse during the fertile time. It’s that simple. And yes, this is a sacrifice… but it also means that my husband is loving me for who I am, ALL of me… he’s not expecting me to make myself “not work,” but respecting the awesome power of my fertility. It’s much like the “engaged/honeymoon” thing… there’s a time for expressing romance in non-sexual ways, and a time for enjoying the honeymoon… every month. :) I’m just saying that you can’t put all American Catholic women in one basket, because many of us DON’T use artificial contraception, and really understand what our entire sexuality is about… fertility and all. NFP has made my marriage stronger, and I only wish more couples understood its beauty and what a gift it really is. Love and passion? We’ve got it. Sickeningly, almost. ;) And part of that is because we also know that we respect each other completely… our fertility included.
Ummm…Natalie…do you know what they call people who “…don’t have intercourse during the fertile time”?
(Wait for it…)
Parents.
Do you mean, we must already be parents because we are too busy with the other children to have intercourse? Or do you mean that we don’t know WHEN the fertile time is.. or we can’;t control ourselves when we know we should abstain? We’ve been married 9 years, and have 4 children – planned, by our decision. When you are charting temps and fertility signs, you know EXACTLY which days you are most fertile… and less fertile, and not fertile at all. When you start having signs of fertility, you abstain. After 3 days of thermal shift and dry-up, indicating ovulation has taken place, you’re good to go. It’s pretty simple, and very effective. 99%, actually, based on studies of thousands of couples who use this simple cross-checking method… (NOT the rhythm method, which is highly ineffective and has a much lower success rate b/c every woman’s cycles are different and can vary from month to month.)
Natalie, I think Ponytail was just making a little stand-up comic-style joke.
Yet, Ian, this is not a comedic issue… issue of mortality are not something to be laughed at.
I think you mean morality, which is somewhat less weighty. And fodder for the occasional comment when I find myself so inclined.
Natalie, I don’t know exactly what you’re objecting to here. I understand that the Church teaches against the use of artificial contraception, and that’s fine. What you and your husband do with respect to your own fertility is your own business, and I have no doubt that you have an incredibly fulfilling relationship.
What I object to, though, is the notion that the practice of those beliefs somehow compels you (or anyone) to impose that on others. Let them come to their own moral decisions about the use of contraception. That’s all. This isn’t about the validity of one belief over another (and I have to say, I believe I showed remarkable constraint and empathy in this post on that count), it’s about where your rights as an individual practitioner of religion begins and ends — YOUR choices. You don’t get to dictate others’ moral choices because of your own beliefs, which I am not doubting or gainsaying or trivializing.
I appreciate that, Ian, and I did note your constraint in this article. ;) However, it seems to me there is a clear distinction between saying that one may do with his conscience as he wishes in his own actions, and someone being made to do something against THEIR conscience so that another may do with HIS conscience what he wishes. Say that – for the sake of argument – it was legal to leave children outside the city walls to perish, as it was in Sparta. Your conscience determined that it was wrong, yet it was the law… it was for the good of the strong, for the country, etc (all arguments made by Lycurgus and other Spartan leaders). But you STILL believed it was wrong, and would not only not do it yourself, but would not assist others in doing so either. Then, say that it was mandatory for you to provide some kind of assistance so that this practice might continue… even though you would not be participating directly in it yourself, would your conscience still permit you to assist in any way?
As it seems to me, there is no “dictating of others’ moral choices” here. No one is forcing non-Catholics to work for Catholic organizations. My mother chose to work at a Jewish nursing home. Even though not all employees were Jewish, they all had to respect the Jewish law and not bring in any food items that weren’t kosher. Their consciences permitted it, but their employers’ did not. If you wish to work for someone who has different moral beliefs than your own, then it does not seem to me that it would be fair to expect them to assist in your practices which vary from theirs. I don’t care what religion or culture it is…. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever… In fact, 40 non-Catholic religious groups (Jewish and Protestant) just signed a petition to the federal government as well, in demonstration of their solidarity with the Catholic Church and what they believe to be an attack on freedom of religion. I find this especially telling, as most of those churches have no problem with contraception (while they may or may not draw the line at abortifacients and sterilization, which also must be covered under the new law). It didn’t matter to them that they differ with the Church on many articles of faith, and even, in some cases, on those very issues which are causing all the ruckus. Even if they think that there is nothing morally wrong with some of all of the issues at hand, they also recognize that an individual (or an individual organization) ought not be made to directly financially contribute to something that it holds to be contrary to the moral law. Good for them.
By the same token, then, doctors and nurses and pharmacists who work at non-church-affiliated organizations shouldn’t be allowed a “conscience clause” when it comes to dispensing birth control or providing other reproductive healthcare, right? They could choose to work at institutions in line with their teachings. As long as they work in SECULAR settings (Walgreens, for example), they should leave their faith out of the work they are PAID to do.
And really? Leaving children to starve outside the city walls is the same as the Pill? That’s the moral analogy you want to lead off with?
You’d also do well to leave off with the sanctimonious “We practice natural birth control practices so our marital bond is better than those who don’t and DENY each other the profoundly beautiful gift” line of argument.
You’re not in anybody else’s marriage or anybody else’s bed (I presume), so you have absolutely no way of knowing how strong anyone else’s spiritual/sexual/emotional bonds of matrimony may be, whether they use the Pill, sterilization, or whatever they CHOOSE. Your marriage works for you? Fine. That doesn’t mean you have the slightest bit of wisdom or insight into anyone else’s.
Actually, Kerry, Ian and I had a discussion not all that long ago about whether it was right for people in the secular world to not do things that went against their consciences (those clerks in NYS, for example, who left their jobs rather than witness gay marriages, which they believed to be immoral). Ian said that if they didn’t agree with something that was part of the job that was asked of them, then they SHOULD leave.
Of course I don’t know anything about anyone else’s marital bonds. I do know that couples who practice NFP have an extremely low divorce rate (something along the lines of 1%) which is eons lower than the national average. My comment about marriage was only in response to the comment that priests don’t know anything about love and passion – implying that if they did, they would know that the only options were to have kids or to use condoms, because (the implication would be) that we can’t control ourselves if we really love each other. My point was that it is perfectly possible to have a passionate, romantic, amazing love life and still practice NFP. That’s all I was saying.
Furthermore, I was not equating the starving of children to someone taking the Pill (though I believe, PERSONALLY, that either one would be a mortal sin for me). I was trying to think of something that everyone could agree was onerous, whether or not they believed in God, religious morality, or what have you. You could pick any sort of thing that you, personally, believe to be gravely wrong, which you would not want to be party to… and would feel guilt on your conscience if you participated in that or aided it in some direct way, even if you were not the person actually committing the act. *insert your opinion of a morally-depraved activity here* The point here is not so much WHAT is considered immoral (unless you want to make it about that, which I believe Ian tried very hard not to do.. my original post was only addressing the comment that implied that all American Catholic women were using BC, which I wanted to point out was not true) but whether you can be a direct party to something that is against your conscience, even if it is not something against someone else’s.
I think Natalie’s point is more than justified, but if viewing contraception as a moral evil makes you feel uncomfortable, look at it this way:
Say you think bacon is one of the greatest gifts to the world–hey, I might agree with you. But if I worked for a Jewish organization, I wouldn’t expect my Jewish employer to pay for me to eat a bacon cheeseburger for lunch every day. If the government tried to force “equal rights to pork products” on everyone, I’d see that as a violation of a Jew’s religious freedom. If I wanted bacon, I’d go out and buy it myself…which, incidentally, is exactly what employees of Church organizations have always been free to do.
As Natalie made clear, women don’t NEED artificial birth control in order to prevent pregnancy; more importantly, pregnancy is not an illness and should not be treated as such.
Ross Douthat made a great point that this isn’t just about the Catholic Church–but following the constitution. I’m still old-fashioned enough to believe that is a good idea.
Look, this is *not about* morality, at base. It’s *not about* what you or the Catholic Church or anybody thinks about any issue, or what anybody’s employer chooses to do. It’s about organizations that take public money to provide services NOT providing the same services as other organizations that take public money to provide services, because they think somehow that their religion makes it okay for them to take public money and force their religion on members of the public anyway.
In a lot of places, Catholic hospitals are the only available option for healthcare, and the government subsidizes them through Medicare/Medicaid dollars. If those Catholic hospitals take public money, they have to play by the government’s rules. Your hypothetical Jewish employer isn’t taking government money to provide services to the general public. (In any case, why the fuck should your Jewish employer get to dictate what you do with your paycheque anyway? Once that money’s in your bank account, it’s yours to do with as you please.)
Why is this so hard for religious people to grasp? If you provide services to the public using taxpayer dollars, you have to provide the same services as everyone else who’s using taxpayer dollars. Otherwise, stop taking public money.
Simple solution, Catholic Church, dont like the rules, dont take federal funding, you fucking fucks.
What is evil, when you got HIV/AIDS and overpopulation, you declare contraceptives more evil then kids starving and people dying of preventable diseases.
But no offense to Catholics, their words are mud, the man who covered up the sex abuse is now FREAKING POPE.
How about the church concentrate on making amends with sex abuse victims, remove that edict where priest cant marry and fix their house?
I left the Church in my early twenties, when I was in the Army and the Boston sex abuse scandal was in full swing. My feeling then, as it now is, was that this was an institution that had no business telling me anything about morality.
I’m sorry that messed with your faith then, and hope you have moved on spiritually. I view these people the same way i view the likes of Eddie Long and the who prosperity gospel bull, just pimps as preachers with a whole bunch of gullible followers who will forgive and throw cash at them.
My parents stopped going to church regularly around the time the scandals broke. My mother especially was appalled — she was a special-ed teacher and administrator and worked with a lot of kids who had been through various forms of abuse and other difficulties. Her take was twofold: 1) As a public school teacher, she was a “mandatory reporter” who HAD to inform authorities of known abuse, so why did the church get to “police” its own? 2) The priests who did the abusing were bad — but probably had a terrible compulsion (not that it let them off the hook). BUT the ones in charge who just moved them to other parishes and covered it up or denied it were even more evil. They could have chosen to do the right thing and didn’t out of self-preservation, hubris, whatever.
Protecting children from harm is “good,” but protecting the Church from “scandal” is “better.” This was the reasoning, such as it was.
This was so painful for many Latino Catholics here who discovered that pedophile priests were sent from Eastern churches to Latino churches in the West because “those people are more devout and obedient and won’t make trouble.” (That quote is not exact but some bishop was reported to have actually said that.)
When the sexual abuse started to surface here in AZ, one of my brothers who was still a devout Catholic, refused to ever set foot in a Catholic church again. He hasn’t, not even for weddings, funerals or other family events. The church knew these priests were known abusers but they did nothing to protect the innocent.
I’ve been finished with the Catholic church for nearly 50 years but I still have issues with the ways they exploit and harm the faithful and the innocent. Sorry, I don’t mean to offend anyone but look at their true history & what they are doing today and judge for yourself.
I worry, too, about the precedent that would be set by excepting the Catholic Church from these rules on the basis of “religious freedom.” Would we also have to say Scientologist organizations don’t have to cover psychology? Or how about Jehovah’s Witnesses covering blood transfusions, which can be life-saving?
Although I consider myself pro-life (in a social sense), I do think that a country that has taken the position of being pro-choice (by legalizing abortions) should not be expected to waiver on that point legally. Consistency in law is vital to our structure.
It’s also true what you say: taking BC is left to the individual’s conscience. The Church just doesn’t get to police that.
I had an argument on this issue recently with a Catholic friend of mine who objected that her tax money should not be spent on things which she found wrong. All I could respond was: “What a lovely dimension you must live in, if that is not already the case.” My tax money is being spent on war, pepper spray for power-tripping policemen, abstinence-only education, and prisons for drug users who would be just as well off if left to their own devices. But then, what would the country look like if we could all just pick and choose?
Sarah, I liked your comment. I would be so happy if when I filled my own taxes there would be a group of multiple choice boxes so I could select how each dime of my personal tax money was spent.
Personally, I have huge issues with all these churches not just the Catholic ones who ride around tax free with great wealth (Check them all out) and continually medal in our collective politics. I think it should be “Pay to Play” Stick your nose in politics, no more free rides for you!
Indeed. You want to be a political player and preach about how politicians who are pro-choice shouldn’t receive communion? (At risk of Godwinning the thread, I’ll point out that, while the church has excommunicated women for working at pro-choice health clinics, they’ve never gotten around to kicking out Hitler.) Go right ahead. Preach the politics all you want. Just pony up the property taxes and pay your fair share for the fire protection, police, and other SECULAR services you enjoy.
I would like to add one caveat to this discussion as we move down the beaten path.
1. Most Catholic Priest, particularly priest active in inner city areas are far from the compulsive child rapists we hear about on TV.
2. Most American Catholics and certainly most American Pentecostals (even preachers) are far more moderate on matters of sexuality than the Catholic clergy (again, old celibate guys dictating matters of sex). To Note, my rather conservative former pastor support the gay marriage amendment in New York (?!!) So this is a bridge to nowhere, as most Catholics, particularly Black Catholics aren’t about to throw away HCR because some priest is worried about paying for a secretary’s pap smear.
3. This is the death throngs of the Right – they’re desperate to rally the Tea Party faithful so they come up with red herrings like abortion and racism as Pavlovian gongs to the Joe Six Pack faithful. When your choice to run against a clean, fairly successful president like Obama is a the mannequin from JC Penny’s and Narcissistic bigoted scam artist, you need all the ammo you can find.
Like the Komen/PP stuff, this a bunch of grandstanding – Wingnuts and their fellow travelers fighting a world passing them by.
This member of the choir says: AMEN! to every word you wrote. Thank you.
Also too, how many Catholics have been quoted in the press as objecting to public funds being used for executions?
Just sayin’.
Not fucking many.
Lawrence O’Donnell totally took Buchanan apart on that a few years ago — the more Pat the Nazi (my favorite kids’ book!) spluttered about how the death penalty didn’t take “innocent human lives” (though it most certainly does in too many cases), the more O’Donnell patiently reiterated “Pat, your argument isn’t with me. It’s with your pope and your church, which is against the death penalty in ALL cases.”
And how many “pro-life” Catholics were called up in that capacity in major media to speak against the war in Iraq — even though Pope John Paul II declared it an immoral war?
Unfortunately, you’re right. Public funds should not be used for executions. This isn’t exactly the press, but you can quote me on it. The Catholic Church’s position is that the death penalty ought to only be an option when it is absolutely necessary to provide protection for the innocent, which applies to essentially none of the cases in our country – period.
Hello all. Unfortunately, this discussion has often strayed from what is at issue. The Church holds that Catholic healthcare institutions should not be forced to provide artificial contraception since artificial contraception, in and of itself, is against their very identity of being “Catholic.” The Church holds that their institutions and employees can not be complicit in evil, and artificial contraception (whether you personally believe it is ok or not) is considered a “grave moral evil” according to the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, this teaching is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2333-2400) under the sixth Commandment “You shall not commit adultery.” You can find this online very easily, and it offers a thorough exposition on many of the sexual and moral issues we are dealing with today. It delves into marital love and the conjugal act, which, in Catholic teaching, has always been seen as open to both life and love. This is not to say that if you don’t get pregnant when you have sex, you are sinning. That is a serious misunderstanding of Church teaching. So too, if anyone has read Karol Wojtyla’s (Pope John Paul II) “Love and Responsibility” or have delved into “Theology of the Body,” I can not see how you could make a blanket statement and say, “Well, priests just don’t understand marriage and sex.” I think many people would be surprised that HOLY and FAITHFUL priests understand those matters MUCH better than most married people/those in relationships do. Back to contraception: Yes, ultimately it is the individual’s decision to use contraception, but the Church (and taxpayers) should not be forced to provide contraception when it is, quite literally, “against their religion.” (There is also concern with this matter that tax-payer funded abortions at Catholic/Christian/other hospitals could be next. Would that be ok, as well? For “the health of the mother?” Um…Really?) Essentially, contraception is against the very identity of being an orthodox (one following about 2,000 years of Holy Teaching) Catholic Institution. Now, not many people like to hear it, but being chaste as a single adult (no premarital sex, oral sex included) is the 100% proven way to stop the spread of STDs and HIV/AIDS. (Yes, there are married couples who deal with these issues, but that’s a topic for a different conversation.) However, in our sex-obsessed culture, the idea of having self-control in relationships and being chaste is, sadly, seen as impossible and/or laughable. That’s a true tragedy, yet nevertheless, the Catholic Church believes in seeking perfection and True Love in our relationships. Therefore, She gives direction regarding love and contraception because SHE actually cares about people’s health, happiness, and spiritual well-being (do you really think the government cares about those matters more than Christ’s Church?). Therefore, the Church is not against contraception merely because the Church heirarchy wants “control,” nor does She merely want to make women “baby factories.” Those are absurd points, and actually very offensive to promote. There is a lot of anger and crude language in the responses here which leads me to believe there is a lot of hurt and misunderstanding of the Church’s mission to share the Truth. Yes, there ARE Judases in EVERY generation (abusers, manipulators, users, etc.), but this has nothing to do with this issue so I find it illogical to bring those matters up. Ultimately, Church Institutions (and what’s more, taxpayers) should not be forced to provide services which are held to be morally evil. It is definitely an attack on religious freedom concerning healthcare institutions, and quite frankly, we should be very worried about the government not only bullying its way into our religion, but also into our healthcare insitutions. Thanks for reading. :)
“…the Catholic Church believes in seeking perfection and True Love in our relationships.”
While remaining aware that perfection is not in fact a possibility when dealing with the all-too-fallible human nature we all share? (Note: That fallibility also includes the church hierarchy, and is most especially on display when they claim ex cathedra infallibility on behalf of the Pope, who is, in fact, fully a human being as well. Capital sin of pride, that.)
There are so many hanging curve balls in your comment I’m tempted to spend the entire morning swinging for the fences, despite having a full work day ahead of me. Then again, my imperfect human nature requires me to make a living at some point, so I’ll let a few others have some batting practice too.
Arguments from authority, even “spiritual” authority, carry very little weight. At the end, it all amounts to “that’s what they told me to do” and that’s pretty thin gruel.
Church Institutions (and what’s more, taxpayers) should not be forced to provide services which are held to be morally evil.
Then then Church SHOULDN’T TAKE PUBLIC MONEY. Period. If it takes public money to provide services, it needs to provide the services mandated by the goverment. If the Church thinks that some or all of the services mandated by the government are “morally evil,” then it should NOT TAKE PUBLIC MONEY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. This is not “infringing on your religious freedom,” this is enforcing parity of services between service providers.
How do you reconcile the right of people NOT to be forced to do morally repugnant things with the Catholic Church’s near monopoly on health provision services in some places? I (and the goverment) think it’s morally repugnant to let women die from ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancy-related catastrophes, but the Catholic Church thinks its perfectly okay. If I have to go to a Catholic hospital (because there’s no other hospital available in my small town in the middle of nowhere) and my fallopian tube is rupturing, the Catholic Church is violating MY religious freedom (which says, “Save my life, now.”) by forcing ITS beliefs on me, a non-Catholic. (In Judaism — I’m not Jewish, but arguendo — a woman who is being endangered by a pregnancy is REQUIRED by Jewish law to have an abortion.) So why do Catholics get to decide what’s “moral” for everybody? Answer: They don’t and they shouldn’t. They can either keep to themselves, or play by the rules. Choose.
Short answer, Ginger: Keep Your God Off My Bod! And for the record, abortion is NOT seen as a sin in every religion, so enshrining laws against it on religious grounds would not only be violating separation of church and state, but would ALSO be elevating the beliefs of some religions over those of others.
Again — when the church accepts public funding that comes from the tax dollars of non-religious folks like me, they don’t get to whine that there are secular public obligations and rules that come attached with that money. If they don’t like it and they really want to provide healthcare without those restrictions, they could sell some of the art in the Vatican and elsewhere and truly live in a Christlike way by taking care of the sick.
Also, please remind me what Jesus said about abortion and birth control? I’ve never found it in the Gospels.
I’d add that I’m past childbearing (I had a preventative hysterectomy based on a family history of ovarian cancer), so contraception/abortion is no longer personally applicable to me.
HOWEVER — I do have a living will. And if I were unlucky enough to end up in a Catholic institution in a vegetative state and that living will were superceded by the superstitions of the “faithful” that they couldn’t in “good conscience” honor my wishes and take me off the ventilator or whatever? Well, in that situation, I’m sorry, but three words apply: Fuck. Your. Faith.
It’s MY body. Not yours, not Benny The Nazi in Rome. MINE. God may or may not exist, but I sure as shit do, so when it comes to my body, what I say goes. Full stop.
Ginger,
I think your comment is my favorite. :)
And again, as a practicing Catholic, I’d be a lot more respectful of the Church’s edicts on artificial birth control methods if those edicts weren’t based on internal Church politics in the first place, rather than actual theological analysis (which was ignored).
So many people missing the philosophical point of this post, so I’ll employ the old reductio ad absurdum.
If the argument is that Catholics (or religion junkies of any other stripe) shouldn’t be compelled to provide money for activities or services they think are immoral, then Catholic organizations must now stop paying any employee anything. Those employees could, after all, use that paycheck to purchase weapons, pornography, or books by Christopher Hitchens. And we can’t have that, can we?
I don’t care why you think birth control is wrong, and I don’t care how awesome your hyper-traditionalist marriage is without it. You’re free to believe that an angry Space Unicorn uses its horn to poke holes in condoms and diaphragms if you like, or that the pill causes rabies. That’s your prerogative, and I’m not taking that away from you. What you can’t do, which is what I was trying to point out above, is compel people WHO ARE NOT YOU to act in a way demanded by your Space Unicorn or chosen deity.
You have religious liberty, and that hasn’t changed. Practice your beliefs however you see fit. What you CANNOT do is, by the practice of your religious freedom, or any other constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, limit others in the practice or – crucially – non-practice of theirs.
I think you might consider that if so many people are missing the philosophical point, there may be a big gap in the logic…. So far I’ve seen everyone agreeing with you debasing themselves to crude language, angry ranting, and completely unrelated statements–another sign that you don’t have a calm, logical leg to stand on.
By snarkily comparing the beliefs of the only calm commenters on your post to those who would worship space unicorns, you’re giving yourself up as lost. Sorry. Before that point I was able to respect you as someone who was at least trying to approach this intellectually, but clearly your hatred of God and the Church make it impossible for you to continue that ruse.
Natalie already nailed your argument, so I’m not going to repeat her. But if you want us “hyper-traditional” Catholics to take you seriously, try treating us like human beings.
You’ve added exactly nothing to the conversation, other than to completely miss my point — again.
Right on, Faith!! I think I might know you ;)
I guess the point of contention really focuses upon this: Are you saying that Catholic organizations are directly responsible for preventing their employees from using contraception, abortifacients, sterilizations, etc.? Every employee is free to do as they wish in their bedrooms already…..
By making it harder (i.e. more expensive, requiring travel, etc.) to procure contraceptives, yes, they would be directly preventing employees from using contraception. That’s the whole point.
Ok, good, just clarifying.
So… logically… if, at this moment, they are DIRECTLY PREVENTING employees from doing something, then by subsidizing that action, they would be DIRECTLY AIDING it. And it seems that that is where the moral dilemma lies for church-based organizations… it’s not in the choices their employees make based upon their own consciences and beliefs… it’s that they don’t want to be directly responsible for providing them with these services.
That’s not their decision to make, any more than how employees spend their paychecks is.
What is not their decision to make? Whether they must directly fund provide access to something they believe to be intrinisically immoral? That makes no sense at all. Honestly… 2+2 make 4. Always. And providing a direct means of access to something that you believe to be intrinsically immoral will always be on your own conscience. Always.
typo… should be a / between fund and provide. :)
No, providing access to something does not put it on the conscience of the “access-giver.” That’s why I brought up paychecks. If someone uses their wages to buy heroin, wouldn’t the person who signed the paycheck, under this construction, somehow be at fault? It doesn’t work that way.
I made another point in the original post, which is that a choice made under coercion is no choice at all. Here again, I think Church teachings absolve employers of any culpability for what employees use their health care coverage for.
Not quite. Isn’t there a reason we are urged to give food, clothing, and shelter to those on the street, but not usually to hand out money directly – especially if they are known alcoholics? Why is that? It’s because we don’t want to be an “enabler,” as the popular epithet goes. If we kept handing out money to someone KNOWING that he was going to use it to buy drugs or alcohol, then we would be at fault indeed.
And as far as a “choice made under coercion” goes… that certainly doesn’t sound like liberty to me. More on this tomorrow, if you’re willing. :)
I don’t think the case of addicts is particularly comparable. I’ll reiterate the way I see this working: You’re an employer, so you pay into group health insurance for your employees. Employees go to the doctor for whatever reason they go, it’s none of your concern. They are not forced to use contraceptives, but they might — and if they do, that’s the choice they’ve made. It would work the same way if health care was voucherized, for example — employees would receive vouchers for care, which you’d have no control over.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with contraception. But even if I did, I wouldn’t feel responsible if an employee, under health insurance I was paying into as an employer, decided to use his or her coverage to acquire birth control. It would be the employee’s decision.
Take it another way: I shop at a certain grocery store. Some of the money I pay for the products I get there are used to restock the store’s inventory. Some of that inventory consists of condoms. When I buy a bag of mangoes, am I now responsible for helping to “enable” the people buying contraceptives? I don’t think so.
Hmm. I don’t really think the example of mangoes is particularly comparable, either. :) It seems to me that we have a different idea on what buying into health insurance actually entails. With the mango/condoms example, for instance, your purchasing of the mangos is, at best, indirectly supporting the buying of condoms. If you purchase health insurance from a company that would cover procedures etc. that you believe to be morally wrong, but do not purchase those goods yourself (as in, purchasing them to be available for the employees you have hired), you may indirectly be helping the insurance company’s other members to procure these services (by virtue of the fact that you are financially supporting the insurance agency)… but you are not directly purchasing those goods (as you would be if you bought the condoms yourself). However, if you are the store owner who is buying the condoms, you are directly providing the possibility of that service to those who may wish to use it. You haven’t used it yourself, but you are providing the access to those who wish to. (Again, I know you don’t believe in the immorality of condoms… I’m just trying to work with your analogy. :) ) If you are buying into a health plan that covers those things which you believe to be immoral, than you are, in that sense, actually buying those goods and services and handing them to someone else to use (if they want to).
Let’s say you spend $100/month on internet service. The internet company wants you to pay an extra $50/month – for household members or employees or whomever – to have access to porn websites (for the sake of the argument). Let’s say (again, for the sake of the argument) that you believe porn to be immoral and abusive to women. It’s legal, anyone can legally use it/do it, but you personally don’t want to promote it or give people access to it. They can go buy it elsewhere if they want. If you pay the extra money to the internet company, then you are buying this service/good and would be directly responsible, in that sense, for handing it over to those who use your internet… regardless of whether they actually use it, you’ve still bought the product.
It’s the specific “buying of something and handing it over to someone to use if they want to” that is what’s at stake here. As you said, we’re not here to discuss the morality or lackthereof of the specific good purchased, just the implications for the purchaser. Again, if they are directly responsible for NOT providing the service, then they are directly responsible for providing it, too. The employee would be the user, but the employer would be the purchaser and therefore the funder/enabler. I realize the analogy isn’t quite perfect, but I’m trying. ;)
Coercion does play a role in the moral guilt of an individual acting against his conscience, so that will have to be a comment for tomorrow. :)
MANGOES ARE TO CONDOMS AS CONDOMS ARE TO_______????? Come on people, we all took the SATs didn’t we?
That was saying how it’s ok for folks like Ian to compare this to that, but not ok for those who disagree to do it. I think Natalie just crushed you, Ian.
Uh, I guess – but only if your point here is that “either all comparisons are valid, or no comparisons are valid.” Which would be dumb.
Some comparisons are valid and help illustrate points. Others are, well, like comparing apples and oranges.
Sheena, I think Ian’s ok with either side using analogies if it helps aids in mutual understanding. :) I enjoy engaging in discussions with him, much as we did in college. Sometimes they can get a little heated, but it’s good to discuss things even if (especially if!) you disagree. The trick is sticking with the task at hand.
Bravo.
(To Natalie.)
Direct responsibility? In matters of supposed morality? Holy Mother(*******) Church?
A Catholic hierarchy that shuttled child-abusing priests around in order to avoid prosecutions and preserve its finances has no right whatsoever to speak to anyone about any form of morality, full bloody stop.
Unless and until they publicly defrock, excommunicate, and remand to proper custody the chomos and enablers in their ranks, and publicly apologize for their entire sordid history relative to this, they have no remaining vestige of moral stature.
Unless and until – remember those words.
BRAVO BRAVO…to Natalie as well.
(Meanwhile, I probably only have a semi-traditionalist marriage… I earn money and make at least half the house rules, have equal say in everything, etc. Maybe I need to get a hold of that Space Unicorn to straighten me out. Wouldn’t want to scandalize anyone. ;) )
FWIW, the snarky comment above wasn’t meant to be addressed directly to you, Natalie. I’m not trying to denigrate your relationship or beliefs. It was simply to point out that the reasoning behind any particular faith-based belief is of no consequence to the argument.
Hey Natalie, I guess I need to have that Space Unicorn straighten me out, too. I feel as though I’ve lost brain cells reading the arguments of so many on here. Way to make your point in a nutshell. Too bad you’ve had to repeat yourself so many times in the language of “idiot” for everyone else.
I APPLAUD Natalie for her oh-so-eloquent responses back to you folks who feel the need to use the *f* word in every other sentence to get your argument across. The Catholic religion and the Catholic Church is THE TRUE FAITH of MANY PEOPLE. Catholic organizations shouldn’t have to provide insurance with free contraception, coverage of abortions and abortifacients..and at no charge at that…..considering these things go AGAINST the beliefs of the Catholic Church. As Natalie pointed out, no one would force Jewish organizations to serve up bacon for lunch if it was deemed that bacon was essential to our vital health, considering consuming bacon GOES AGAINST Jewish beliefs. And yes, I’m comparing the two because it’s the same thing: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Who are you to knock someone else’s religious beliefs? Seems to me you get pretty irritated when people knock your beliefs or your lifestyles. Well, it’s the same thing for us. When people sign up to work at a Catholic organization, they are well aware of the beliefs of the Catholic church, if they don’t like what those beliefs are, they can go work elsewhere. Simple AS THAT. People find such fulfillment of poisioning their bodies with the artificial hormones found in birth control that end up causing long-term damage, and by the way, condoms DON’T protect against all STD’s, namely herpes. You give people a false sense of security by advocating for birth control and more sex, making them think they will find fulfillment in this way. I am a fallen member of the Catholic church, became sexually active at the age of 15, and put myself on birth control. I became pregnant at the age of 22. I decided to keep my baby instead of abort him and throw him away like garbage. Do you know how many men I allowed to “use” me over the span of my teenage and young adult years? I’m now 28 and my self-esteem is in the toilet. The ways you all speak of to live…well they got me no where. I have serious health issues because of the long-term effects of birth control, namely Depo Provera. Ever watch TV? Ever see the lawsuits coming about because of the deaths related to the Ortho Patch and Nuva Ring? Maybe things aren’t always what they seem. And in any case, if you aren’t Catholic and you live a certain lifestyle, that’s your business. That’s between you and God. But don’t attack the religious freedoms of the other people in this great nation. Just as a Jew shouldn’t be forced to consume bacon, a Catholic school shouldn’t be forced to provide health insurance for their employees contraceptives and abortions at no cost. It’s called religious beliefs for a reason. BELIEFS. FAITH. You might not share in the same ones, but be respectful of those that do. You all sound like a bunch of hateful, “it’s my way or the highway…I’m right and you’re wrong…who cares about your religion…the Catholic Church is ridiculous so let’s all just take a dump on what they all believe because they’re all just nuts.” If you want contraception, go pay for it yourself. I did for many years, I didn’t expect anyone else to do it for me. I didn’t expect taxpayers who might not share in my beliefs at the time, to fork over their taxpayer dollars to provide me with pills, shots, and the like in order for me to engage in irresponsible behavior. And I ended up with a baby anyway (and he has taught me more about life than any adult ever will). I certainly expect insurance companies to cover preventative health care, mamamograms, and tests to detect all kinds of diseases and cancers. But I don’t expect them to be forced to provide birth control and abortions at no cost–and I ESPECIALLY do NOT feel it is right to FORCE a CATHOLIC organization to do so, going against all of the Catholic beliefs and faith. You don’t share in it, fine, that’s your business. But don’t crucify people for their unwavering faith that you have no concept of.
Try reading comprehension, Sheena. If you take public money, you take the obligations that go with that. Catholic organizations can opt out of the public secular funding if they’re uncomfortable with the rules.
That’s the central point Ian has made over and over and it fails to register with the Professional Victim Christians who believe that they’re being “crucified” because they can’t force their beliefs and way of life on everyone else.
And maybe if the Catholic hierarchy hadn’t had to spend so much money settling lawsuits arising from their decades-long coverup of rape and abuse of children by their “priestly people,” they would have more to spare on helping the sick without having to take public money.
Then again, if you think being forced to eat bacon equals being forced to have a child, then you’re an idiot. Which is probably why your self-esteem is in the toilet to begin with.
Catholic organizations will have to abide by these laws if they are to meet the HHS mandate, regardless of their funding sources. The only exemption is for those which serve primarily only Catholics… which would therefore exclude even Jesus and His disciples, since they came to serve all.
Since they have no choice in the matter, that makes them doubly-absolved of responsibility.
“The ways you all speak of to live…well they got me no where.”
Sheena, please also point out where anybody here advocated letting men use you like a toilet. If you chose to have sex with a lot of men because of poor self-esteem, that was still your CHOICE. I’m sure you’re a big advocate of personal responsibility, so please assume it. Unless you were assaulted — in which case I am truly and heartily sorry — having sex is a choice and it’s under your control. Yes, there are a lot of screwed-up messages about how women need to be sexy, etc. But there are screwed-up messages for all of us and it’s our job as adults to work through those.
Birth control or lack thereof has nothing to do with having sex. No more than having access to a car means that you’re going to drive recklessly. In fact, how many unplanned pregnancies arose because a girl thought that being on the Pill would make her seem promiscuous, whereas if she acted as if it “just happened,” it wouldn’t be as much of a sin?
As I pointed out, Planned Parenthood does teach abstinence (I worked there about 20 years ago and still read up on their programming on a regular basis), but it’s abstinence education built around empowering women to say no and to recognize that sex and childbearing can wait until they are ready and that they do not have to “submit” to men (as the Catholic Church dictates) in order to be fulfilled.
(Also, where is all this forced bacon-eating taking place? I seem to have missed that news item. OTOH — denial of birth control, even at secular corporate pharmacies, and other assaults on women’s rights has been going on for decades, with the full approval of celibate men who think they have a right to tell me what to do with my body, from cradle to grave.
You want respect? Stop meddling in the lives of other people who don’t share your faith — and yes, that means stop begging for special treatment for Catholic institutions that want to take public funding from taxpayers in a secular society who represent a wide arrange of beliefs (as well as no beliefs whatsoever) but don’t want to provide the same level of care and coverage that secular organizations have to offer.
This always happens.
Everywhere I go on the Internet, every time there’s a discussion that’s critical of the Catholic Church in any way, the wingnuts come out. Never mind no one here was attacking anyone for their beliefs. They were just pointing out the rather obvious truth: If the Catholic Church doesn’t like being told what to do with public money, they shouldn’t accept public money. They should just go completely private and find other ways to raise money for their hospitals. That way they can make whatever rules they want.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
Jade, what’s hilarious to me is that it pretty much shows how little faith they really have. If it’s the rock and anchor and core of their whole life, why do they get so hysterical over what some stranger on the internet has to say about it? Nobody is telling them they can’t go to church, pray, worship as they see fit, and conduct their sex and family lives as they want. Yet somehow they still feel insecure unless EVERYONE thinks and lives exactly as they do.
It’s like the morons who claim there’s a war on Christmas because some overworked retail clerk says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” (Even though there are, in fact, MANY holidays around Christmas, and even though Christmas happens when it does because of the church co-opting pagan holidays, and even though shopping for presents has NOTHING to do with the religious roots of the Christian holiday.) If you’re firm and secure in your faith, why on earth would you care what somebody says?
Indeed. The insecurity these people show have always intrigued me. What causes it? It has to be insecurity, they can’t be that concerned with our souls.
Maybe for them it’s the realization that the rest of the world is passing them by and so they have up the rhetoric. The last howls of a dying empire so to speak.
Even if a hospital is completely privately funded, it’s still mandated under the health care law to provide these services. So that won’t help the issue at hand.
Kudos to Natalie, Faith, and Ginger. At least some people on this thread understand the concept of religious beliefs and the sacredness of those said beliefs. If those beliefs weren’t sacred, then would there be any point to your Faith at all???
“Kudos to Natalie, Faith, and Ginger. At least some people on this thread understand the concept of religious beliefs and the sacredness of those said beliefs.”
You still don’t have the reading comprehension skills to understand anything here, do you? NO ONE is attacking the Catholic Church’s beliefs or anyone else’s. But there’s this crazy little thing called the First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, which is the cornerstone of our republic. (Let me know if any of this rings a bell with you.) That means there is separation of church and state. So if the church doesn’t want the state telling it what to do, it can easily say “Sorry, we don’t want PUBLIC taxpayer dollars.” And if the church wants to get into the business of politics (such as suggesting that pro-choice politicians shouldn’t be elected), then they should register as paid lobbyists and lose their tax-exempt status.
And though I know this is too fine a point for you to comprehend, there are MANY different religious viewpoints on sexuality, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church may be YOUR final word on it — but it is NOT the case for every religion. And there are many atheists such as myself who pay taxes and do not appreciate money going to support a religiously-based social agenda against women and gay citizens. Hate on your own dime.
“NO ONE is attacking the Catholic Church’s beliefs or anyone else’s.”
Oh Really??? What do you think this whole mandate is doing? ATTACKING the Catholic Church’s beliefs…and you make a mockery out of them, so you yourself are attacking those said beliefs.
Kerry,
For your information, I was assaulted, on numerous occasions. I doubt you are heartily sorry for that as I’m sure you feel that is my fault as well. My point being, I was taught in high school in sex ed class that the way for a boy to like me was to sleep with him. Get my drift? I take full responsibility FOR MY ACTIONS which is why I didn’t throw my child away at an abortion clinic. Don’t talk to me about comprehension….you can’t seem to comprehend a word of what anyone has said unless it goes along with your own particular views. I went to Catholic school for seven years, from my understanding, the government ISN’T ALLOWED to fund parochial schools, just as they aren’t allowed to fund churches. Religious hospitals receive government funds, but the stipulations are different. Any employee that is hired at one of these hospitals signs contracts regarding these stipulations.
I am sorry about your being assaulted. No one should have to go through that. But I thoroughly doubt that your school district’s sex education curricula stressed “sleep with boys to get them to like you,” especially given the current mania for abstinence-only education in the schools. At any rate, if you’d gone to Planned Parenthood, I assure you that you would have received a quite different message.
And Ian has made the point vis a vis public funds quite well in the original post:
“The claim is that Catholic employers will be forced – forced! – to pay for medical services they believe are immoral, and will therefore be placing their immortal souls in danger of estrangement from God’s grace.
Here’s why they don’t need to worry: The decision to use or not to use contraception is the individual’s. For employers, it is their duty — not only under the new law, but also inasmuch as they desire to act justly to their employees — to provide health coverage to the people who work for them. Health insurance plans, now, must provide coverage for free-of-cost contraceptives. Employers qua employers are not obligated to make moral decisions for their employees, particularly when it comes to matters of health. Any moral culpability for the use of contraceptives — and here again, I’m only granting this so as to make the Catholic counter-argument — rests with the persons deciding to avail themselves of this coverage, not the group paying into the health insurance plan.”
Get it? Just because a plan allows for the POSSIBILITY of covering contraceptives, that doesn’t COMPEL anyone to use them. Catholics who oppose artificial means can, like Natalie, use NFP. Catholics and non-Catholics who choose otherwise would be taking the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY on themselves to use that coverage. Just as they would if they were to take monies earned at their jobs with Catholic Charities or wherever and go buy condoms or porn or whatever else might be forbidden by the church.
“I was taught in high school in sex ed class that the way for a boy to like me was to sleep with him.”
Well, that definitely didn’t happen.
Jesus Ian, she’s all over my ass and you made the nastiest comment of all in this interminable motherfucker of a thread. (I mean, don’t get me wrong — I LOL’d!)
I really didn’t mean for it to be nasty. I was trying to say that I’m highly skeptical of her claim that she was taught in sex ed class that boys would only like her if she slept with them. I wouldn’t dream of presuming to know whether she gave that a shot or not.
Well, Ian what are kids taught in sex ed class then? Why the need to pass out contraceptives and condoms if not to send the message that to engage in a healthy teen relationship it also must consist of sex? And yes, the teacher that taught my class put a huge emphasis about how healthy sex was in teen relationships. That it was to be expected, and therefore “have at it boys and girls!”
It shouldn’t need pointing out, but there’s a difference between “sex is a normal part of relationships” and “boys will only like you if you sleep with them.”
Ian,
Sex is a part of a normal relationship when the people in the relationship are 13 and 14 years old? Really?
Ian,
Sex is a part of a normal relationship when the people in the relationship are 13 and 14 years old? Really? And maybe
“sleeping with boys is the only way to get them to like you” is how we 13-14 year old girls took it that way. This happens all the time because CHILDREN don’t understand what the difference is or what is meant at the time.
Again, I very much doubt they told you to go off and merrily screw each other at the age of 13.
Even if they did, I don’t see how it undermines the point of my post.
Again, missing the point, Ian. When you pass out birth control to 13 and 14 year old girls, that’s sending them the message that it’s time to use the provided product.
And Kerry,
The Catholic Church ISN’T my final word on it. If you had read my previous posts, I left the Catholic Church years ago. I, however, am a true believer in respecting the faith of others, which this law disregards. You obviously have missed that point I made, so good luck with the comprehension aspect yourself. And by the way, the assault on the Catholic Church is simply because Planned Parenthood views the church as their number ONE enemy. And WHO was Obama’s NUMBER ONE campaign contributor? Planned Parenthood. He’s under their thumb, he has no choice. They fund his campaigns, he’s relying on them for funding his re-election campaign. Why don’t you quit arguing your pointless argument here and go do some research.
And as exhaustively stated upthread, the Catholic Church does NOT respect the faith of others, because there are many faiths (Judaism, for example) where it is considered a sin NOT to save the mother’s life over the fetus, whereas the Catholic Church wouldn’t allow abortion even to save the life of the mother. And the Catholic Church has launched a campaign against Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice clinics for years, to the extent that they have excommunicated women who work at clinics. (Though again, they’ve never gotten around to excommunicating Hitler.) That is their right, of course. But they do NOT have the right to have their beliefs enshrined as the law of the land, or to flout rules and laws that cover other institutions that take federal money.
For that matter, the Catholic Church doesn’t offer sacred burial or funeral rites to miscarried early-term fetuses, which seems to suggest that the institution lacks the courage of its convictions on the whole “life begins at conception” thing. Why would they discriminate between a still-born baby and one that was miscarried at 12 or 14 weeks when it comes to administering those sacred rites?
Kerry, YOU are misinformed. The Catholic Church DOES allow women with ectopic pregnancies to have the problematic tube removed. That is not “abortion,” but trying to save the lives of both… and in the process, the baby usually dies. This is not directly taking the baby’s life, but an unintended and unfortunate consequence of the only possible way of saving either.
I didn’t limit my comments to “ectopic” pregnancies, Natalie.
Other health conditions are also deadly to women, and the church has gone so far as to excommunicate a nun who tried to help save a woman’s life by suggesting abortion as an option: http://jezebel.com/5540802/nun-excommunicated-for-suggesting-abortion
And please let me know what the usual Catholic liturgy is for those fully-human beings who are miscarried at 12 weeks. I have many Catholic relatives, many of whom have suffered miscarriages, but I don’t remember any of them being told that they had to have Catholic funeral rites and burial.
Kerry,
A miscarried baby may have funeral rites at ANY age of gestation. I am sorry that your friends were not aware of this. Several of my friends had their miscarried babies buried, with or without burial Masses, as they chose – well before the “still-birth” age. The problem with early miscarriages is that there is often very little, if anything, of the baby left intact by the time the miscarriage is complete, especially if a D&C procedure was required to remove the already-dead baby and all the uterine tissues if they are not being delivered on there own. Most often, the hospital will want to perform tests on the remains to determine cause of miscarriage, and again- there is little or nothing left to bury properly. But any baby, miscarried or aborted at any age, can have Catholic funeral rites and burial…
At the university I attended with Ian, there was a Tomb of the Unborn Child, specifically for aborted babies’whose bodies were able to be acquired from clinics (this is often impossible to do, since usually the bodies are discarded with medical waste. And yes, we had funeral Masses and burials for them.
“If a child’s parents intended to have their child baptized but the child died before the sacrament could be administered, the local ordinary may allow the child to have a Catholic funeral (cf. Canon 1183.2).
Likewise, a miscarried baby may receive a Catholic funeral, though a family is not required to formally bury a miscarried child. If a more developed unborn child dies and is delivered intact, parents often choose to bury the child. Otherwise, hospitals typically remove the remains as they do with human organs or bodily tissue removed during surgery. (Because most miscarriages occur in the first trimester, the remains are generally minimal and/or incomplete [as with a D & C procedure].) The different ways of laying the child’s body to rest in no way imply that a fetus at an earlier point of gestation is less than a person or less deserving of respect. Every human life is sacred, “from the moment of conception until death” (Catechism, no. 2319; cf. no. 2258).
The same guidelines for funerals and burials of unbaptized children would apply to aborted babies. The Church recognizes the personhood of every unborn child (cf. Catechism, nos. 2270–75). She prays for the souls of miscarried and aborted babies, and commends them to the mercy of God (cf. Catechism, no. 1261).”
*THEIR own
And you didn’t address my larger point — the Catholic Church, by fighting for legislation that would deny abortions even to save the life of the mother (aside from ectopics, if you insist), is claiming that THEIR view of morality should take precedence over any other faith — including, again, Judaism, which dictates that the mother MUST be saved over the fetus. This is clearly enshrining one religion’s views as the law of the land, in violation of the First Amendment.
And, again, as with ectopic pregnancies, the Church’s view is that while direct abortion always involves the direct taking of an innocent life, in any case where the life of the mother is in grave danger, she may do what is necessary to try to save them both, even if this will most likely result in the death of the baby. Her intention cannot be to take the baby’s life over her own, because one life is not more important than another. Her intention must be to do what it takes to protect both, even if one will likely die. That is why surgery for ectopic pregnancy (removing the tube) is a valid option, while taking an abortion-inducing drug (whose only intention is to kill the baby directly) is not.
Furthermore, there are MANY laws of our land which are the direct result of “someone’s” view of morality. There are laws which have no moral implication (driving on the right hand side of the road, for example) and laws which do (murder is wrong not because the STATE says it’s wrong… it is wrong regardless of the state’s viewpoints on the matter… wrong of its own accord.)
Thank you for acknowledging that the Catholic Church continues to put the lives of fetuses over women. And congrats on continued analogy fail with “murder” — the murder of a person who has already been born is already condemned by all religions that I know of, but as pointed out by so many here, there is NO one religious standard on abortion, so again — when the Holy Mother Church, Inc. fights to stop abortions, it is fighting for the unconstitutional principle that ITS religious viewpoint should be enshrined in law.
Not ALL religions believe that slavery is wrong, either… or polygamy, or wife-beating, or a host of other “moral” issues that we must deal with on a daily basis. Human beings will never agree completely on matters of ethics. But that doesn’t mean that ethical matters simply can go away because of it. The VAST majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception. The moral problem for some lies with whether a person’s size determines their fitness to live. For us, it’s simple… a human person is autonomous, and can never be used as the means to an end, or directly killed.
Again, “someone’s” morality is always enshrined in law. Back when there were slaves, you know… that was the law, too. But just because something is the law doesn’t make it right, nor does it mean that those who believe it to be wrong ought not fight it with every fiber of their being.
Your sophistry won’t hide the fact that you support letting women die in favor of saving clumps of tissue. Again — slavery involved ACTUAL BORN PEOPLE! But since you cannot distinguish between dividing cells and living women, I give not a fig for your fucked-up misogynist notions of “morality.”
Oh and believe me — I WILL fight the disgusting woman-hating creeps of Catholicism Inc. with every fiber of my being.
(And you’re welcome for finding out the burial rites stuff for which you asked. :) )
You and I both know I don’t give a shit about that — but it is telling that the church doesn’t push “bury your miscarried child!” more publicly. Since they’ve made such a fetish object of the fetus and all. (Of course, fetuses haven’t fucked, so they’re not as “sinful” as women.)
Kinda like how the “abortion is murder!” crowd tends to go silent when asked if women who have abortions should be jailed. Or, more insultingly, say “Oh no, let’s just jail the doctors.” Because women like me who have had abortions couldn’t POSSIBLY have made their OWN moral and adult decision to do what is best for themselves and others. Nope, they’re just stooges devoid of agency.
Maybe you wouldn’t be so full of hatred and alone with your cats if you hadn’t of had abortions which resulted in the ripping apart of a blob of tissue with arms, legs, toes, feet, hands, fingers, a head, a heart that beats, etc.
Excuse me, the “clumps” of tissue.
Yes yes, I had an abortion so I’m a murderer. Yawn. Got anything original to say? If only I could be as happy and well-adjusted as you obviously seem to be, what with your “nasty bitch” and “crazy cat lady” and “you’re not even married!” insults.
But wait — you’re not married either, correct? So I guess you’re a failure by your own yardstick.
No, you are not a murderer Kerry. You are just gravely misinformed. You can’t be a murderer if you know not what you do.
Sheena, please prove your contention that Planned Parenthood was Obama’s number-one campaign contributor. Since you’re all about doing research, that is.
But since I’m a trained journalist, here’s what I found at Open Secrets about his contributors in the 2008 election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Can you find “Planned Parenthood” anywhere on that list?
So now here’s a question you must answer: Are you uninformed, or a deliberate liar? Given your fantastic assertion that your high school sex ed classes specifically told you to sleep with boys to be popular, I have my own suspicions.
This is a great place to whip out Hitchens’ Razor:
That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Here is straying from the issue but I’m going to say this considering I’m on AngryBlackWoman’s page or whatever it’s called: “We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” -Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood. Ever wonder why 80% of all abortions are performed on poor African American women? Hmmmmm….
Wow, Sheena found the sub-basement and kept on digging with her race card.
By the way, I asked you a little question after you showed your ass on the whole “Planned Parenthood is Obama’s number one campaign donor!” thing. It was, basically, “Are you an idiot, or just a liar?” But now I think you’re both. Which may explain why self-esteem is so out of reach for you.
“Straying from the issue” of course is Sheena-speak for “I got caught with my bullshit lies about Planned Parenthood funding Obama and my high school telling me to sleep with boys so now I’m going to backpedal.”
Yeah, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. She also died in 1966 — long before abortion was legalized in this country.
And as it is, your “fact” about 80 percent is also wrong: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Before Roe v. Wade, some states did include provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman’s life or pregnancies due to rape or incest. Abortions continued to occur, however, and increasingly became readily available. In the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year. Sanger died in 1966.
Kerry,
I’m very informed. Go do your own damn research. And go to more than once source, it’s all there. Ever watch Obama’s video about pledging his allegiance to Planned Parenthood? Go google it. Then google links about contributions that AREN’T made public. You might need to go to other sources, as in ones that aren’t corporately funded.
No one FORCED me to sleep with boys, you jerk. I, like other girls, were force-fed garbage about how having sex at 13 was a healthy thing. You figure the rest out. And for your information, I had a boy force himself upon me during my first sexual encounter. But he used a condom, so I guess he thought that made it ok. Quit trying to attack me personally because you live a lonely, empty life without any sort of moral guidance.
You done trying to get sympathy yet, racist troll? Yes? Good, here’s your porcupine, now get out.
Why would you do such a terrible thing to a porcupine?
Believe me, porcupines can take care of themselves.
Kerry,
I also voted for the man. Thinking he’d do something about, I don’t know, helping the economy and babies that are already here. He hasn’t done much of that either. He is a puppet on a string. Peace.
Sure you voted for him, Petunia. Sure you did. You just keep spinning your little fables. The more you squeal, the more I know what a sad liar you are. What does it say about the state of your life that you keep coming in here with these unsourced “facts” and tall tales?
And you didn’t say anything originally about Obama pledging support to Planned Parenthood. (Though why you think that’s so shocking for a progressive Democratic president to do, I don’t know. The fact that the Dems reliably support women’s reproductive rights is one of the strongest points in their favor in my view.)
What you SAID is that Planned Parenthood is HIS number-one donor and supporter. I handily proved that was a lie. And now you’re mad because you forgot that there are many people in the world smarter than you who know how to use Google and “research” things.
But please, do feel free to share with the class these SUPER-SEKRIT links that only you seem to know about that would prove you right after all. I seriously doubt you’ve ever worked in the nonprofit sector or you’d know that nonprofits are audited and they MUST make public the sources of their funding and what they spend it on.
But of course, for the benefit of the sane non-Sheena folks who might be visiting here, Obama has expanded healthcare so that kids can stay on their parents’ health plans til they are 26. Health insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. And Medicaid for poor people was expanded by $11 billion in the PPACA.
All of which might end up being a very good thing for your son. If he even exists, which I’m now doubting based on your track record here.
Holy crap. Sheena’s son exists. I know him personally. His name is Austen, his father wanted him to be aborted and left because Sheena wouldn’t have an abortion, and Austen has some developmental challenges that don’t detract at all from the fact that he is a beautiful, sweet, amazing 4-year-old boy. I also know that Sheena and I got into debates about Obama because she planned on voting for him and supported the health care bill, for precisely the very reasons you mentioned… and she still does support it, by and large.
Oh fuck. Oh holy mother of fuck this is awesome. This is fucking awesome. You actually whipped out “don’t be mean to her, she has a developmentally challenged child”!
You’re precious. A treasure of performance art that must be kept in perpetuity. I say we should encase Sheena/Natalie in carbonite and leave them here as a monument to dedicated trollery.
Gee Star Storm, no where did Natalie say to feel sorry for me. She was simply making the point that because he is developmentally challenged, by society’s standards, he’s not fit to live. And she didn’t even say that, I just did. So fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Wow can I be like you? Where every other word is fuck? SO intelligent. Maybe you are the one who is developmentally challenged.
Oh, absolutely lovely. Very lovely choice of “dismissal of intelligence based on the use of crude words”, followed by the juxtaposition of “I’m rubber and you’re glue”. Wonderfully crafted.
There is the problem about the restatement of a falsehood (didn’t you acknowledge that Kerry Reid never actually stated that your “son” is not fit to live? I would go check again, but it is a long thread, and I have things to do on a bit of a time pressure), but actually, I think that adds to the overall construction of this piece. Compounded with the picture perfect representation of a personal implosion downthread, I have to say that this is a commendable representation to a new and underappreciated art.
Try READING COMPREHENSION Star Storm. I said “by society’s standards he’s not fit to live”. The person on this thread, however, who DID state “that any children raised by me wouldn’t be fit to live” would be Pony Boy or Pony Man or Poky Little Pony or whatever his let-me-hide-my-identity with a lame screen name is.
HAHA. No. No feeling sorry for Sheena allowed. I certainly don’t. I’m proud of her, but I don’t feel sorry for her in the least. People were questioning her credibility and stating that she probably didn’t have a son, and I said she did, in fact, have a son. How is that feeling sorry for her? I thought you guys were interested in the truth. But apparently, not when it gets in your way of insults… which is the only leg upon which you apparently have to stand in this discussion.
*Clapping for Natalie*
Natalie, you have no problem supporting a church that practices misogyny, prefers to see women die rather than offer a therapeutic abortion (a stance you apparently applaud as “moral,”) homophobia, cover-ups of the abuse of children, and too many other evils to name.
Those are “truths” that you cannot cover up with the Febreze of “faith.” But somehow, it’s the LANGUAGE here that’s the real problem. Not your continued support and fervent belief in an institution that is interested in forcing its religious views upon everyone else in a secular society.
Frankly, your moral compass is pathetic, and you and the other RCC apologists should EXPECT insults. But I know, I know — who cares about actual ACTIONS when there are the Fee-Fees of teh Faithful to consider?
Anyone notice how there’s a sudden flood of counter-arguers, all of whom use a feminine first name as their entire screenname?
I’m sure it’s not a pattern… kind of like how it’s not when it happens at other sites.
What’s the old line? Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action?
Only in this case, “enemy action” looks an awful lot like Sideshow Bob flailing around in a circle of rakes.
Thanks for implying that because we’re women our views aren’t worth anything.
I guess equal rights don’t extend to us.
Really? No, it’s not a pattern… it’s called “I shared this link with some people and wanted to see what they would think.” You know… sharing on FB. I can’t help it if most of the people who think you guys are wrong are women. (Boy, how ironic is that.)
(unless you’d be more encouraged if we all used crass screen names… because most of you men don’t seem to want to reveal your last names, either. Privacy, right?)
Bahahahahaha. Crass screen names…love it. We’re not ashamed to use our real names, now our we?
*are*
Kerry,
Here you go…here’s just ONE:
http://blackgenocide.org/home.html
Sheena, no wonder you provided that link — there is no factually sourced evidence anywhere. amid the hysterical “throw numbers at the wall and see what will stick” miasma. (Unlike the links I provided.)
Try this again: show me a link that proves that Planned Parenthood is the number-one donor to Obama. Saying something doesn’t make it true. You have to make like a parking lot and back your shit up.
But of course, it’s also beloved by racist assholes like Newt Gingrich: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/291330/20120201/rick-tyler-gingrich-race-baiting-black-genocide.htm
And if you’re so fervently “pro-life,” why on earth would you have voted for a pro-choice presidential candidate? You seem to have trouble keeping track of your lies.
Yes, I did vote for Obama and because I consider myself a pro-life Democrat. How the hell do you know who I voted for? I didn’t find out about his Planned Parenthood affiliations until AFTER I cast my vote. My whole point with talking about sex ed class (maybe you should have met my teacher, we sure weren’t taught abstinence only!!) is that handing out birth control to virgin teens isn’t exactly sending the right message. I don’t want, nor expect sympathy from any of you. I was simply putting out there that I saw MANY girls, like myself, go through similiar things, as things like “What if he doesn’t call you back after sleeping with him” and “You caught him sleeping with you and 10 other chicks” weren’t exactly covered in sex ed as the pills and condoms were handed out. We were told what a great feeling sex was and how it was normal for teenagers to engage in it. Not once was any of the emotional baggage discussed that comes along with casual sex, especially casual sex right after you’ve hit puberty for goodness sake. I’m done arguing with you people, you’ve strayed completely from the point. The only reason I brought ANY of that up, of things I went through, is because this life YOU speak of, has brought me, along with millions of others, nothing but misery. Only once I decided to live the right way, and save myself for someone who deserves me instead of a drunken good time or for crap relationships based purely on sex, have I begun to enjoy my life the way it was meant to. You people are obviously the ones with issues, and I pray you get help for those issues. Your hatred is undoubtedly what’s wrong with the world. And go do a little more digging on Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry, birth control, Constitutional rights, and freedom of religion. Get off this BS thread and go do something productive. I’m armed with my knowledge, obviously you have a lot of catching up to do. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
Be sure to take a hanky on your way out, Lil Racist Liar. Show your ass here again and I’ll be sure to kick it. Again. Have fun with your imaginary son.
Do I need to post pictures of Austen? Seriously, let’s lay off the ad hominem stuff and just stick to the task at hand.
(I’ve never met him, but have plenty of pics of Sheena’s cute little boy… my cousin, Austen. :) )
Agreed.
Fuck.
You.
Too.
And take your porcupine with you.
horseshit. you were absolutely not taught this in sex ed class, nor were you taught that you had to sleep with boys to get them to like you.
that is such a ridiculous lie that it calls in to question every other thing you’ve posted here.
And even if she HAD been taught that — does it then follow that she had to surrender all agency over her own body because Teacher Told Her To? I would love to know the name of the school district where she was enrolled so I can look up their curricula for the past several years and find out just what they were teaching.
I will say this: when I worked at Planned Parenthood, we saw a LOT of Catholic girls and women come in for abortion services — precisely because they had been told that using birth control was a sin, nice girls didn’t do it, etc. And yet they ALSO believed that women were supposed to submit to the men in their lives, so abstinence didn’t really work for them. Nice girls take care of their men. Nice girls are pleasers. Father knows best. (As our Troll Friend Mark pointed out, I wasn’t exactly capable of being “the nice girl” — I think he thought he was insulting me, but he belled this footloose-and-fancy-free cow quite well, as it turns out!)
So they had the worst of both worlds — they weren’t encouraged to say “no” to men as a rule, and they weren’t encouraged to take control over their bodies and seek safe birth control methods. And when they got pregnant, where did they go to deal with their problem?
Planned Parenthood. Because they knew we were clean, safe, affordable, and provided counseling. Even to people we knew would be back out in front of the clinic a week or two later proclaiming that we were “baby killers.” And of course we would never “out” them. Because that would be wrong.
OTOH – I do have a family member who chose to continue a pregnancy in high school. Her Catholic school made her life a living hell — the girls who teased and harassed her during her pregnancy were never disciplined. And the nice sweet Catholic-run nursing home where she worked after school? Fired her for being a slut, basically. So yeah — that’s how one girl who “chose life” was treated by the church.
How do you know what I was taught? Three years after I graduated, the sex ed teacher that taught me was fired for the “curriculum” she imposed on so many children.
Links, or it didn’t happen.
seriously. and in any event, if the teacher was fired for the curriculum, then what’s your point? you had an experience that was an outlier. you’re essentially admitting that such a curriculum isn’t standard.
you need to get all your ducks in a row and your stories straight, honey.
The teacher was fired for giving out didos. But the rest of it, I do believe, was standard curriculum.
EXCUSE ME, DILDOS.
When was this? It must have been written up in local news outlets. Unless it was a Catholic school and got covered up.
Nope. Public high school. And it’s a small town and they kept it out of the papers. Nice crack at the Catholic church, though.
So I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it, then? Whither thou, O credibility?
I mean, I’ve already shown that you lied about Planned Parenthood being Obama’s number-one donor and you lied about anyone on this thread claiming that promiscuity was great, and you lied about my saying that your son wasn’t fit to live. So excuse me if my default position with anything you say is “lying crazy woman.”
I couldn’t come up with the numbers about PP being Obama’s number one donor, so I suppose that automatically makes me a LIAR instead of someone who couldn’t find the numbers that are nowhere anyway since by law, PP doesn’t HAVE to disclose them. Thank a Republican for that, by the way, for passing bills granting corporations “personhood” under the Constitution. Never once did I claim that you people said promiscuity is great. Planned Parenthood’s business thrives on promiscuity and since you all seem to have such loyalty to PP, well, I just figured that you support their views on that, too. I confused your hateful comments with Pony Boys…since they all seemed to echo one another. No way shape or form does this make me out to be a “lying crazy woman”.
ABL. Are you the Magic Unicorn who can see into my past and tell me what absolutely happened or what absolutely DID NOT happen? All hail the Magic Unicorn. Or maybe you had Doc Brown fix the flux capacitor.
I’m sorry, “Space Unicorn”, not “Magic Unicorn”. But I guess you consider yourself magical anyway to be able to travel through time and tell me what ABSOLUTELY DID NOT happen.
Wow…what interesting comments here…It’s a wonder that under the devastating logic displayed by “Fucking fuck” Arrogant Demon “Wingnut” Jade Fox and Miss “self esteem in the toilet” Reid that the Catholic church hasn’t just withered and died. Miss Reid–please excuse the presumption that you are not married…the alternative presumption after reading your friendly comments is far too impossible to consider…I’m afraid that in your haste to exert your rhetorical prowess into the conversation you’ve neglected a few rather important details.
1. As it’s already been established by the obvious defeat of Ian’s latest debate with Natalie, paying for the additional coverage of contraceptives would in fact make the purchaser of that coverage an accessory to the act–the same way driving a friend to an abortion clinic would be an accessory to the act. If you fail to understand this, Miss Reid, please feel free to continue pretending you are the only one with brains in the room and we will politely humor you with a smile a let you ramble on. You are good for a laugh.
2. To address what Jade Fox so sadly put as “If the Catholic Church doesn’t like being told what to do with public money, they shouldn’t accept public money”: Wow. Really Fox? Try reading what you just wrote again and a second time if need be and see if the unbelievable horror of what you wrote hits you between the eyes. Imagine one of the signers of the Constitution saying this. Has it hit you yet? The real scary thing about you Fox is that you actually sound like you believe this…that a religious run institution like any Catholic college, university, or charitable organization must be strong armed into purchasing a product–that is, insurance coverage of a product it believes responsible for furthering the degrading of intimacy from an act open to life to one that merely satisfies one’s genitalia–if it wants to offer its services in the private market place as astounding. It is a concept that would cause constitution signers to do barrel rolls in their graves. I will hope Fox did not realize that Catholic Colleges and universities do not except federal funds…and yet they are bound by the same requirements as hospitals. This at least may excuse her from a gross misunderstanding the separation of church and state…this may not be the case but we can always hope.
3. And finally,I still think it’s laughable how every supporter of this aberration of a law finally seems to use, dumb and blind like so many lemmings, the well repeated lie, that contraceptives–and even abortive contraceptives are a form of “Health Care” When did pregnancy become an illness and selfish sexual satisfaction a right which must be supported by religious institutions? Probably about the same time a living person’s right to be protected in the womb became a choice, I suspect.
4. Finally, Is there any follower of this blog, Ian, that don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to say “Priests abuse boys, fuck, fuckers,” when they hear the words “Catholic Church”? It is a condition quite as worrying as the underlying rage that suggests they are still in the infantile emotional reaction stage…but quite a bit less worrying than their overwhelmingly deplorable understanding of history, philosophy, ethics and logic. Do we really have to explain that giving condoms to those in Africa is as “caring” as giving gang members bullet-proof vests? Do we really have to explain again, that our Country was in fact founded with a belief in God and not as the completely Atheistic nation that so many of Ian’s followers seem to believe it should be? How many more centuries will the Church have to repeat that Separation of church and state does not mean separation of State from Morality or Ethics? Well, after reading the comments on this sweet little blog, I’m guessing we’ve got a few more years…that is of course, if the unequaled minds of Fox, Reid, and “Arrogant Demon” don’t finish us first.
Huh. So the last troll disappears and another one reappears, complete with tone-trolling and sexism. How fucking nice.
Door’s there, use it.
Excuse me, I have a child to care for and had to put to bed. If I had your mindset, I wouldn’t have one to put to bed. He’d be floating in a landfill somewhere.
Sincerely,
The Troll
Huh. I think Pony just proved your point, Mark. Seems like he thinks the F word is going to scare you off – or make his point? Not sure which. Oh well. Either way, it’s sadly laughable.
…obvious defeat of Ian’s latest debate with Natalie…
“Obvious?” Not to me.
To address what Jade Fox so sadly put as “If the Catholic Church doesn’t like being told what to do with public money, they shouldn’t accept public money”: Wow. Really Fox? Try reading what you just wrote again and a second time if need be and see if the unbelievable horror of what you wrote hits you between the eyes. Imagine one of the signers of the Constitution saying this.
My point has nothing to do with public funding, so I’ll let Kerry and Jade handle this if they want to.
But in his 1782 Notes on Virginia, Constitution signatory Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I still think it’s laughable how every supporter of this aberration of a law finally seems to use, dumb and blind like so many lemmings, the well repeated lie, that contraceptives–and even abortive contraceptives are a form of “Health Care”
They are health care. That’s not a lie, it’s a fact. You’ll have to point out to me where someone here has characterized pregnancy as an “illness;” however, I’m led to understand that it is usually considered a medical condition that requires the attention of a doctor.
Women with various uterine and ovarian disorders (polycystic ovary syndrome, for example) take the pill not as prophylaxis against pregnancy, but to normalize their menstrual cycles. And anything that prevents the transmission of disease can, I think, be considered health care.
That’s not a lie. It’s just how the world works.
Is there any follower of this blog, Ian, that don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to say “Priests abuse boys, fuck, fuckers,” when they hear the words “Catholic Church”?
I made no mention of this phenomenon in the post, and I have no idea why I’d be answerable for this blog’s “followers.” If you don’t care for salty language, this may not be a great place for you to spend your time – although I do appreciate the fact that you spent enough of it to read my scribbling.
But, since you brought it up — yeah, priests abuse boys. Girls, too. And it’s been handled despicably.
RIGHT ON, IAN. I just now read your views.
Excuse me, not RIGHT ON IAN, as you were quoting Mark’s views. Right on Mark, then. I misread..as you took his words and put them in your response. But thank you Ian for sticking up for my child.
Heh, I kind of figured, Sheena. Regardless, I’d always stick up for your child, and if it’s true that anyone has ever suggested – to your face or otherwise – that he “should have been aborted” or isn’t “fit to live,” that’s completely appalling.
Kudos, Ian. Unfortunately, even I’ve seen comments from her friends that suggest she should have aborted him… and his father’s family is still furious at her for not “taking care of the problem” before their son had to pay child support, after he dumped her for NOT getting an abortion. :( (Which child support, unfortunately, he doesn’t often pay. But that’s another story.)
Thank you Natalie…for sticking up for Austen and myself as well. Love you!! <3
Thank you, Ian :)
Golly Mark, a misogynist idiot like you finds me unmarriageable? I haven’t been this heartbroken since I figured out I wouldn’t be Mrs. Gingrich the Fourth.
“Do we really have to explain again, that our Country was in fact founded with a belief in God…”
No, but a link to the section of the Constitution — you know, the document which actually IS the founding legal basis of our nation — in which the word “God” appears would be nice. Hint: Don’t look too hard.
Excellent points, Mark.
It seems as if it’s taking Mark a long time to find where “God” appears in the Constitution.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=338808849474556&set=a.324108104277964.78078.100000363323563&type=3&theater
A picture of my beautiful son, Austen. And yes, he was born nearly deaf. People tell me all the time that he would have been better off aborted since he isn’t “normal”.
It’s shocking anyone would say that to you about your son, Sheena. I certainly wouldn’t. Unfortunately, I can’t see the photo, but I’m sure nonetheless that your son is wonderful.
Thank you, Ian. That’s wonderful of you to say….thank you again. It truly means a lot. Is the photo blocked? Probably because I have it set to “private”. I’ll repost it.
Could you folks (who aren’t) start using paragraph breaks every now and again? It’s kind of hard on the eyes to read 600 words uninterrupted by whitespace. Maybe I’m just getting old and foggy.
Eh, you’re just getting old, Mr. Boudreau. ;)
Wow, such “good Chrstian love” from our troll friends. Tell me, is hate all you have?
I fear any children you bring up – if they are raised by you, they will be unfit to live.
And how am I racist?!?!? By pointing out that black babies are the majority being aborted and that it’s a sad thing? And Pro-life Democrats DO exist!! I completely support the health care reform bill, I just DON’T support the attack on the Catholic Church by having Catholic organizations having to provide insurance covering birth control and abortions at no charge. If people don’t like it, they can GO WORK ELSEWHERE, like, Planned Parenthood. Also, yes I have been to Planned Parenthood. I used to go there every three months to receive my Depo shot. I had issues and asked to talk to someone about my situation, and you know what they told me? That they didn’t provide “counseling” other than “counseling for abortion services”. I don’t know what universe the Planned Parenthood you worked at resided in, but the one I went to…well you don’t even want to know. It is no secret that Planned Parenthood was one of Obama’s top, if not the #1, campaign contributors. This isn’t a lie. You’re so smart, go find it yourself. I applaud a LOT of Obama’s efforts, especially with health care reform, but I cannot support such a thing as this that forces a religious organizations to throw their beliefs out the window. And that is all. The virgin troll is now off to read to her non-existent child and to pray to her non-existent Unicorn god. It’s been a pleasure, a real pleasure but I’ve wasted enough brain cells today reading your garbage. Funny how people are called trolls when they disagree with what you believe. And Kerry, sorry about your hysterectomy. That must have been tough. If you don’t have any children, I’m sorry for that too. You missed out on something wonderful.
Sheena, you keep screaming that Planned Parenthood is Obama’s number-one donor, and you keep NOT providing the solid facts to back this up. If you don’t like being seen as a liar, don’t lie — or at least don’t keep squirming away every time somebody asks you for evidence.
I am not required to “find it myself,” because in Grown-Up Land, the person who MAKES the claim for something being factual is the one who has the burden of proof. Senator Jon Kyl claimed that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. Saying it didn’t make it so (and then he had to back down with a lame “that wasn’t meant to be a factual statement”). So perhaps what you said wasn’t meant to be a factual statement, either.
So until you provide the evidence, I will continue to view you as a liar and an idiot. Racist is just the side garnish.
Thanks for the kind words on the hysterectomy, but I assure it wasn’t a tough decision. Certainly not as tough as fighting ovarian cancer. I’ve never been particularly interested in having kids. I may or may not have missed out on something wonderful — but my life is pretty damn great most days.
But I’m glad to see you back down from your claims that Obama hasn’t done anything for the kids who are already here, given what PPACA provides especially for coverage of kids with pre-existing conditions.
Obama promised Medicaid and Medicare cuts were “off the table”. Guess what, they weren’t. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of innocent children lost their health insurance coverage because of these cuts that he promised weren’t going to be cut? So no, I don’t back down from my original statement that he hasn’t done enough. His health care reform bill is in it’s first stages, he has to be re-elected for the rest to be implemented. In the meantime, the hundreds of thousands of babies and children are going to be denied basic healthcare because their President couldn’t keep his word by keeping their insurance intact from being slashed by Republicans. So there you have it. You can view me as a liar and an idiot…I view you as uninformed and hateful. I said some kind words to you as in “sorry for your hysterectomy” and I’m sorry about your battle with cancer, I truly am. I have yet to receive any kind words back. Instead I’m being labeled a racist, a troll, a liar, an idiot, and someone who’s children aren’t fit to live because they are being raised by me. Who’s the one spewing venom on here? It’s called compassion…even after all the things you’ve labeled me, I still feel compassion for the things you’ve had to to through regarding your cancer and hysterectomy. And yet you think my child is unfit to live being raised by someone like me, someone with compassion.
I said nothing about your son being unfit to live — just pointed out that based on the evidence in this thread, his mother is an idiot, a liar, and a racist. And you keep providing more evidence
In fact, the claim you made that I DID say that is just another fucking unconscionable lie from you.
And NOTHING has been slashed from Medicare and Medicaid. As I indicated, the extra money for Medicaid included (at the insistence of Sen. Sanders) in the PPACA to soften the blow for the Senate refusing to include a public option EXPANDS healthcare for poor people, including kids. And it was just reported today that seniors are saving on prescription drugs under PPACA, to the tune of $2.1 billion. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/02/417238/report-seniors-saving-on-prescription-drugs-as-a-result-of-health-reform/)
There have been cuts in Medicare on the PROVIDER end, but those aren’t the same as cuts on BENEFICIARIES.
I don’t have cancer. I had a hysterectomy because of a strong family history. Best damn decision I ever made.
And Obama doesn’t really have to be re-elected necessarily for the rest of healthcare reform to kick in — the bulk of what’s already passed goes into effect in 2014. Of course there’s always the chance the Supreme Court could overturn part of it — but that’s something that could happen with ANY piece of legislation. I’d say if you’re worried about losing the protections already won through the PPACA, then the solution is clear: fight like hell to re-elect President Obama and a Dem House and Senate.
One more point, Sheena: This is what you said in your first comment here: “The ways you all speak of to live…well they got me no where.”
I pointed out that NO ONE in this thread had advocated promiscuity or whatever. So if you want to pout about not being treated with respect, well, consider that you started out making ad hominem and strawman arguments — and then dug in deeper when confronted with facts contrary to your assertions. I don’t actually care if you have compassion for me or not. You’re not a factor in my life, and you don’t get to have any say in it. In the same way that the Catholic Church isn’t a factor and doesn’t get to have any say — no matter how much they try to politicize healthcare.
Yes, there is SUCH evidence that I’m a racist, a liar, and an idiot. This is based on your own BS opinions, OPINIONS, by the way. Argue it till the cows come home, sweetheart…I know what/who I am as a person. Call me what you like, but you’re not hurting my feelings any. Keep bringing up the fact I was promiscuous as a teenager and young adult. I don’t care. So are a lot of young girls, especially when they are brought up without any moral standards and taught that sex is normal to engage in, even at a young age. That if their pill fails, well, just hike it to the abortion clinic. I think it is downright hilarious that you keep bringing up the fact that I was promiscuous and then in the same breath say that “birth control has nothing to do with sex”. I think it might be time for you to go take your daily dosage of crazy pills, cause you stopped making sense about 200 posts ago. Have a nice life, lady. Maybe you should go adopt some black babies, I don’t see you jumping first in line. I guess that would be too inconveient for someone as selfish as yourself. Mad yet? How dare I call you selfish?
Kudos,
The Lying, Racist, Idiotic Troll.
Oh Sheena, you’re just adorable. Why would anything you say make me mad? It’s like being insulted by the homeless guy screaming on the corner about the Kaiser stealing his string. You’re just the break I take from my paid work.
But just to be clear: because birth control was available, you thought it meant you had to fuck? Do you, perchance, have a really bad problem with smoking and booze? Because that shit is legally available, too.
P.S. You STILL haven’t pointed out where anybody here advocated having a lot of sex as “a way to live.” Wanna backpedal from that lie, too, now that you’ve sorta-kinda admitted you were totally wrong on the “Planned Parenthood is Obama’s Number One Donor” and you kinda-sorta admitted that I NEVER said your son was unfit to live?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=q15&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&cycle=2008
Here’s a great site about campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans. Just plug in your year, what Senators/House members you are interested in, and there you go.
In the year 2008, Barack Obama received $874,070…more than ANY member of Congress. This was before his election. Let me find the actual campaign numbers. As you know, Corporations are viewed as “persons” now under the Constitution and therefore are allowed to contribute as much as they would like to any politician. Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and falls under this “personhood”. Also, due to new laws passed under the Supreme Court, corporations do NOT have to disclose the exact amounts contributed to campaigns. Republicans/Democrats alike have pushed these measures to be passed, and those that are so “pro-life” are making it so that PP along with other Corporations, are able to fund political campaigns with no limitations on contributions, and without having to disclose the EXACT amount contributed. Of course this is nothing new, but now it’s been added to the Constitution, that Corporations (which are “personhoods”) are able to lobby without question. This is why our government is considered “bought and sold”. Bet you didn’t know that an idiot troll like me knows all this….
You’re shifting the goalposts again — you said in the first place that they were his number-one donor, and as the list from Open Secrets I provided showed, they weren’t even in the top 10. (Goldman-Sachs, which also donates a lot to GOP candidates because they spread their bets around.)
It’s not surprising that Dems who are running for office get money from Planned Parenthood , since they are the only party interested in preserving reproductive rights. No more than it’s surprising that the GOP gets money from oil companies.
And our government is bought and paid for by lobbyists? STOP THE PRESSES!!! Next you’ll be telling me that Catholic Charities would rather see kids warehoused in foster care than adopted to loving gay couples! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/catholic-charities-gay-adoption_n_858133.html
Keeping kids out of loving homes and in the foster care system (or threatening to end adoption services altogether) because you want to “punish” other people for their sexuality doesn’t fit my moral idea of being pro-child, but then, I’m not in the church because I gave up on their hypocrisy and pretzel logic. Vows of poverty – but the Pope lives like a medieval potentate.
Though it does give the lie to the “adoption, not abortion” rhetoric. Or at least there should be an asterisk and a footnote — *unless you’re boinking in a way we don’t approve, because Jesus talked all the time about gay marriage and abortion.” (He didn’t, of course.)
And honestly — under a million is nothing when you’re talking about billion-dollar campaigns. Do I wish we had public funding for elections? Yup. But we don’t. Again, the reason PP supports Dems over the GOP is because the GOP has become a rabidly anti-woman cult.
“In the meantime, the hundreds of thousands of babies and children are going to be denied basic healthcare because their President couldn’t keep his word by keeping their insurance intact from being slashed by Republicans. ”
Um, want to point out where this has happened because of Obamacare? If you’re talking state level, that’s out of his control. It’s not his fault a bunch of Tea Party morons took over statehouses. And Congress. Where, instead of creating jobs, they decided, just like the Catholic Church, that Planned Parenthood was the real enemy.
Oh Lord. You are dumb. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/politics/medicare-and-medicaid-face-320-billion-in-cuts-over-10-years.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/politics/wielding-the-ax-on-medicaid-and-medicare-without-wounding-the-patient.html
I’M dumb? You’re the one who keeps telling us how you fucked a lot to be popular because — I don’t know. What was the reason, again? Your sex-ed teacher told you to? (Quick, show of hands for everyone who believes Sheena on this one — yeah. That’s about what I thought.) But taking the charitable view that maybe this whole “fuck your brains out kids, it’s GOOD for you” brand of sex ed did exist in your school — dd you ever stop to think “Gee, maybe there’s another way to go about this?”
And before you scream – no, I don’t give a shit how many people you slept with. It’s not my business. That’s what sets me apart from Holy Mother Church, Inc. — I’m not in the business of trying to control other people’s bodies and sexuality and gaming the system by demanding tax-exempt status while acting like a political lobbying organization.
And please point out WHERE these cuts are affecting current BENEFICIARIES, as opposed to PROVIDERS. $11 Billion added to Medicaid because of PPACA. Seniors saving big on prescription drugs. Young adults staying on their parents’ plans instead of being left high and dry without coverage in a recession. Rescission/denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions gone. And the medical loss ratio meaning that insurers have to either pay for actual care (NOT lobbying costs) or refund part of the premium to the policyholders. So you say you’re in favor of healthcare reform, yet you said upthread that Obama hadn’t done anything for poor kids. Do you just not remember what you’ve typed? (Kinda like how you didn’t remember typing that Planned Parenthood was his number-one donor and doubling down on that over and over even though I proved the first damn time that you were wrong? Who’s dumb, again?)
And again, the best way to shore up the Big Three is to keep Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP Privatization Goon Squad out of office.
I said he hasn’t done ENOUGH. Big difference.
Perfect example: because of federal funding being cut to states for Medicaid and Medicare….(a)my son was thrown off of his Medicaid for 3 months. Considering he has developmental disabilities, I had to delay taking him to his doctors for SEVERAL months. (b) Medicare benefits for my next door neighbor, an elderly widower, have been cut nearly in half due to cutting in federal funding to the state. He can no longer afford 3 of the 8 medications he needs in order to function, and is in constant pain. Obama promised these cuts were “off the table”. I applaud Health care Reform, but he shouldn’t have caved to the Republicans when it came to slashing Medicaid and Medicare funding.
I plan on doing my part in keeping those goons out of office.
BILLION dollar campaigns? Don’t you mean MILLIONS? ha
I corrected my mistake, you moron. Which is more than you could do. And again — why was it that you felt compelled to bring up blackgenocide on THIS particular page? Oh right — because “black lady” is in the title, so therefore it MUST be relevant! Racist idiot.
I felt compelled to bring up black genocide on this particular page, because many African American women have no idea that Planned Parenthood was founded by a woman, Margaret Sanger, who’s main goal in life wasn’t to bring about progression for women’s rights, but to “exterminate the Negro population” as well as the other ethnic groups and human beings that were “unfit for society”. Sanger was a loyal fan of Hitler’s and took much of his ideas and rhetoric and incorporated them as her own. Just as Hitler deemed Jews, African Americans, the disabled, and the mentally retarded as “unhuman and unfit to live”, Sanger felt the same way. And so her plot to found an organization to quietly exterminate the members of society she felt were “unfit”, namely those “negros”, became a reality. Most African American women do not know that the majority of abortion clinics are placed in lower-income areas for a reason. Even Republicans know this and do nothing about it…in fact in the state I live in, our Republican governor had abortion clinics shut down in higher income areas (where the wealthy can still travel to obtain an abortion wherever they wish) and yet kept the clinics in the lowest-income areas up and running. This is not a pro-life stance. This is more than obvious that this governor cares more about the wealthy to continue to procreate and the poor to abort their children. You can dismiss Sanger as a crazy woman who is long-deceased, but yet she was still the founder of Planned Parenthood. Had it not been for Sanger, PP would not be in existence today. I find it extremely sickening to continue to support an organization/now corporation who’s original founder shared such radical, racist ideas along the likes of Hitler. This woman might be dead, and she might have died before abortion became legal in all 50 states (by the way Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in ALL 50 states, before Roe, abortion was still legal in several states) but what she fought for, ended up happening, even if after her death. To support Planned Parenthood itself, is like supporting the neo-Nazis even though Hitler is dead.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=338808849474556&set=a.324108104277964.78078.100000363323563&type=3&theater
A picture of my beautiful son, Austen. And yes, he was born nearly deaf. People tell me all the time that he would have been better off aborted since he isn’t “normal”. He is 4 years-old and has the speech and language of a 15-month old. He finally said “Mommy” last year, and said his first sentence, consisting of four words, ironically, on his 4th birthday.
If you punch the lights out of the first one who says he should have been aborted, it tends to discourage the others.
(Since I just crashed this popsicle stand, I’m going to keep my skepticism about how many people there are out there making such a statement ‘all the time’ to myself.)
Hey Panic Pony,
So my son is “unfit to live”, eh? Well go sit on the bench with the thousands of others who think he’s “unfit to live”…because according to them, he doesn’t deserve life for the following reasons: (a) born out of wedlock, (b) no father around, (c) he is disabled, (d) born to a young, single mother, (e) he was unplanned, and therefore “unwanted”, and (f) his mother (me) believes in God and considers herself pro-life.
The bench might be kind of crowded though.
The Troll
I wish I were confused by the various interlopers in here playing the “real victim” card, but alas this was entirely predictable. There are some topics that really tend to bring out the worst in people – first amongst them being any criticism of the actions/ideology/hierarchy of their chosen organized religion.
So, point out the hypocritical stance of the Church in demanding to be able to take public money while flouting public rule, and out the all come to call you a hater. And don’t be flummoxed by the ones who turn nice all of a sudden- that politeness will disappear instantly the moment the core conflict is addressed again.
For those in here defending the indefensible positions highlighted in the post: Cry all you want, and enjoy the martyrdom of our contempt. Or maybe you could choose adulthood, and the recognition that your rights (and PARTICULARLY your religious imperatives) end the very moment they impinge on those who are not your co-religionists.
I’m so racist that I voted for a half-black man. I’m so racist, that people of all nationalities make up my family. I’m so racist, that my dream is to adopt, one day, unwanted black babies that would otherwise end up in a dumpster.day. Yep, I’m a racist all right.
So you say. But as you indicated earlier, we have no way of knowing how you voted. And since you’ve lied habitually about “Planned Parenthood is Obama’s Main Donor,” ALL your claims are suspect in my eyes.
And if you wanted to adopt those “unwanted black babies” from Catholic Charities but happened to be gay, they would tell you to eff off — better the kids languish in some foster home or be shuttled around than live with TEH EVIL GAYZ!!!
For all I know, Kerry, you voted for McCain!! Based on your “facts” and “logic” it’s hard for me to believe a word you say. I most definitely voted for President Obama….if I didn’t, why would I claim I did? If I had proudly voted for McCain don’t you think I’d be blasting that? I have no problem blasting my other views!! And just for the record, I think Romney, Ron Paul, AND Newt are ALL morons. I didn’t lie about Planned Parenthood contributions…did you go to the link I posted???? Hmm..did you???? Probably not.
Why would you claim you did? Because it’s Trolling 101: pretend to be a disgruntled supporter who actually LOVES black people!
And again your reading comprehension is off. Here is the list of the TOP contributors to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign from Open Secrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
NOWHERE on that list does Planned Parenthood appear. Yet what did you claim? Allow me to refresh your flagging memory:
“And WHO was Obama’s NUMBER ONE campaign contributor? Planned Parenthood. He’s under their thumb, he has no choice. They fund his campaigns, he’s relying on them for funding his re-election campaign. ”
Is Planned Parenthood number one on the list? No. Is it even ON the list of top donors? Nope. This is why I have no choice but to view you as a liar and/or an idiot. Every time I point this out, you double down on the wrong.
And again — in a campaign that raised $750 million (I was wrong on the billion — http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6397572&page=1#.Tyt6vcjaGt8), to claim that Planned Parenthood is the driving force is just ludicrous.
And according to Open Secrets, the amount they contributed is far less than you’re claiming: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008
What you appear to be confused by is the fact that ALL of the pro-choice money in total that went to Obama is from Planned Parenthood, when in fact the chart very clearly indicates that it’s inclusive of the entire sector of the pro-choice and abortion providers who donated.
But again — so what? Abortion is legal. Contraception is legal. The Democrats are the ONLY party interested in protecting those rights. Why wouldn’t organizations that support choice and reproductive health give money to Dems over the GOP? It’s not a crime.
To be clear — you seem to be claiming that ALL the money from abortion and pro-choice orgs that went to Obama is from Planned Parenthood, when Open Secrets makes it clear that it is not. So even using your own source, you got it wrong.
To be clear…obviously not ALL the money from abortion and pro-choice orgs came from PP..but a hell of a lot did. Ok..clarifying…..happy now?
So you’re backing down — at last! – from your oft-repeated claim that Planned Parenthood is Obama’s number-one donor, mere HOURS after I posted the FIRST link showing that you were incredibly wrong? Well, I guess that’s some kind of progress.
And again — what’s wrong with PP donating to the Dems? The oil companies and private security firms (Blackwater, Halliburton) tend to donate to the GOP because they feel that’s the party that best serves their interests. If you want to talk campaign finance reform, I’m all for it. But why shouldn’t Planned Parenthood go to bat for the women they represent by trying to get allies elected?
Also, how does $1,837 translate into “a hell of a lot?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2008
House
Total to Democrats: $255,301
Total to Republicans: $10,000
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2008
Senate
Total to Democrats: $96,575
Total to Republicans: ($3,000)
Looks like Planned Parenthood shows up just fine on the list.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2010
House
Total to Democrats: $177,690
Total to Republicans: $2,000
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2010
Senate
Total to Democrats: $85,296
Total to Republicans: $0——BING BING BING…getting ready for election time.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2012
House
Total to Democrats: $58,933
Total to Republicans: $0…..GETTIN READY FOR THAT ELECTION….
*Correction*
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates
Select a Cycle: 2012
House
Total to Democrats: $58,933
Total to Republicans: $0….ELECTION TIME IS COMING UP.
Senate
Total to Democrats: $34,196
Total to Republicans: $274
Why would Planned Parenthood donate to Republicans when Republicans have made it a point of policy to attempt to eradicate the organization? I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove here.
One might also point out, and I will, that the way Open Secrets compiles those “organizations” comes from the requirement to list your employer when you donate to a campaign. Planned Parenthood the organization may not have donated much, but employees of PP may well have donated that much in total. Unless you look at the actual FEC filings, you wouldn’t see that.
If I and a few friends donate to Obama and say we’re employees of XYZ Corporation, Open Secrets will list “XYZ Corporation” among the “donors,” even if XYZ Corporation the corporate entity may be supporting Republicans.
Because Ian, the majority of Republicans are no more pro-life than the Democrats, and they gladly accept the donations up until election time in order to gain those pro-life votes.
I did — my comment is in moderation because I dropped in links. But you keep saying that Planned Parenthood is Obama’s number one donor. They are NOT. Here’s Open Secrets, which I posted originally about a billion comments ago when you then flailed and said that the unsourced stats in blackgenocide were where the REAL story was.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Read that list and then tell me — AGAIN — how you can continue to claim that Planned Parenthood “owns” the Obama campaign. What you did was take info that Obama got the most money from ALL the pro-choice orgs (not JUST PP) and somehow twist that into “Planned Parenthood is his number-one donor!” Which is just wrong, wrong, wrong. And again — if he gets more money than the GOP, no big surprise, given how much the GOP (like the Catholic Church) has been showing its ass on its misogyny.
I KEEP SAYING PP IS OBAMA’S NUMBER ONE DONOR…I said it ONCE, on ONE comment. I obviously can’t come up with the numbers because, again, by law, PP is a corporation, and they don’t HAVE to disclose the exact amount. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were his number one donor…and if that were so, it would explain why he doesn’t back down with them AT ALL. There have been other pro-choice president’s who haven’t made every move PP dictated to them. Obama makes it obvious. Here’s a good example that perhaps PP has been throwing tons of money at him for years: In his state of Illionis, while he was a senator, a bill was trying to be passed to make it mandatory that babies that survive abortions (we are talking about larger babies obviously, during second and third-trimester abortions) be given medical treatment instead of being shelved to die. Obama was the ONLY senator to actually take the floor and speak out against this bill. Even some of the most pro-choice senators at the time voted against this bill. Why was Obama the only one to take the Senate floor and give a speech? Maybe because PP wanted him to, since they’d be funding his election. Just maybe. So yes, you can add conspiracy theorist to my list of names now.
Correction: “even some of the most pro-choice senators at the time voted IN FAVOR of this bill”
I fully support children going to live with gay families. My conservative family members might disagree with me, but better with a loving, gay family than in the street starving.
I fully support universal health care. I fully support social programs to help families in need. I don’t support Republicans ending social programs that will result in millions starving to death. I don’t support any of the Republican candidates. I don’t support abortion. I don’t support religious freedoms, views, and beliefs being trampled on as this original discussion was about. There. You know a little bit about me now. Just because I vote for one man doesn’t mean I agree with all that he does. That would make me a sheeple.
And anyway, I’m putting it out there who I voted for and why. I didn’t have to do that. Voting is private. Whether you believe it or not, that’s up to you. But then again, you think my son is imaginary. Maybe you think I have imaginary children because, well, maybe you have imaginary children that you wish you might have had, and if that’s the case I’m sorry for you. Well, goodnight. I’m sure I’ll read up on more of this in the morning.
And I leave you with another photo, a photo of the one you have claimed “isn’t fit to live” because he is being raised by me. His smiles are worth more than any amount of money in the world. I’ll kiss him goodnight and hug him just one more time. People that say he shouldn’t be alive makes me even MORE grateful for him everyday.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=338808522807922&set=a.324108104277964.78078.100000363323563&type=3&theater
Okay, now you’re just a fucking liar, Sheena. Point out where I said your son is unfit to live. Do that or fuck off.
“Imaginary” I implied because of the many fables and falsehoods you’ve unleashed here, of which “Planned Parenthood is Obama’s Number One Donor and They Own Him” was just the most easily disproved, despite your desperate flailing.
You have a son. You love him. Good for you. That doesn’t give you a license to lie. I NEVER said your son was unfit to live. You are a filthy liar.
And NOBODY’S religious views or freedoms are being trampled on. Again — if the Catholic Church is uncomfortable with the strings attached to federal money, they can choose not to take it. But they have no right to deny abortions to women who might otherwise die because St. Helper-of-Imaginary-Sky-Daddy Hospital thinks it’s a sin — to the point where they will excommunicate a nun who tries to save a pregnant woman’s life by suggesting abortion: http://jezebel.com/5540802/nun-excommunicated-for-suggesting-abortion
And PANIC PONY said my son was unfit to live since being raised by me. Never said it was you. Just included it in my argument. Since you both seem to share the same views and all.
Horseshit. I have no idea who Panic Pony is and I’m not responsible for anybody else’s comments here — if you wanted to address him/her, you should have directed your comments directly there, instead of engaging in your cheap Pity Party Demagoguery. You are still a contemptible liar.
I apologize, I confused your hateful comments with the Pony Man’s hateful comments:
“Pinkamena, Panic Pony
Wow, such “good Chrstian love” from our troll friends. Tell me, is hate all you have? I fear any children you bring up – if they are raised by you, they will be unfit to live.”
Screw the GOP. The majority of them are just as pro-choice as Obama. Not to mention Bush’s 10 year Iraq war, yes that was SO PRO-LIFE OF HIM. I mourn friends I’ve lost over there everyday. The majority of the GOP and the Democrats are filthy lobbyists.
I’m not a filthy liar, any flippin idiot can figure out that Obama has an allegiance to PP…not just because he is a progressive Democrat, but because well, DUH. Who else generates billions of dollars a year in blood money? Why not throw it at him? And then have him vote in every way, shape, and form that they want him to? I apologize for not coming up with the actual numbers of donations. Probably because by law, PP doesn’t HAVE to disclose them.
And I voted for him because McCain was no more pro-life than Bush was. The GOP is made up of a bunch of liars and hypocrites, and pledge to be “pro-life” just to get votes. I’m sure Newt has taken one of his fifty wives/girlfriends to the abortion clinic once or twice. At least when I voted for Obama, I knew where he stood on the issue, even if I disagreed with it. Much better than voting for a liar like McCain who played on pro-lifers hearts (look at who he picked for a running mate….Sarah Palin…a mom with a baby with Down’s Syndrome..hello…) just to get votes.
You can sit here ALL NIGHT LONG and call me a liar and a troll or whatever. Obviously you AREN’T married or have even a LIFE otherwise you wouldn’t have been sitting on here all day attacking people with elementary accusations. I feel like I’m on the playground… arguing with the insecure, over-weight, freckled bully who can only resort to name-calling because it seems HER self-esteem is in the toilet. I guess mine isn’t so much after all. I imagine you are sitting alone in a house full of cats. How sad. I, however, am surrounded by so many people who love me. Blessed Be. I’ll pray for you, honey, I really really will.
So you equate “having a life” with “being married?” A woman without a cock in her life is somehow missing out? Interesting perspective from someone who has devoted paragraphs here to how messed up her life has been because she thought she had to fuck men in order to be worthy. And it also, of course, insults all the widowed people, or gay people who can’t get married (because the Holy Mother Church, Inc. sticks its nose into marriage rights even for non-Catholics. But we’re not supposed to talk about how THEY suppress the rights of even non-Catholics, right? That might hurt the Widdle Fee-Fees of the Devout Professional Victim Catholics who will claim that not being allowed to discriminate against gays is equivalent to being “crucified” for their faith.)
I’ve got lots of people who love me, too — no worries. It may surprise you, but a lot of unmarried childfree women are really happy. We don’t define ourselves by our procreative capabilities or our abilities to keep a man around.
“Blessed Be. I’ll pray for you, honey, I really really will.”
It’s amusing to me how the most hateful lying morons in the world always think they can earn a get-out-of-jail-free card for their lies and bullshit by saying “I’ll pray for you!”
And it’s especially precious when the “I’ll pray for you” line comes on the heels of this: “I feel like I’m on the playground… arguing with the insecure, over-weight, freckled bully who can only resort to name-calling because it seems HER self-esteem is in the toilet.” So AFTER telling me how much you hate me, you try to win your way back into Imaginary Boyfriend Jesus’ good graces by tossing in “I’ll pray for you?”
Honey, I’m a proud atheist. Do what you want. You could say “I’ll take a dump for you” and it would be as meaningful for me. Which is to say – not at all. But hey — knock yourself out. I don’t care if people pray or don’t pray, as long as they don’t expect me to join in.
And “an allegiance to Planned Parenthood” is a far fucking cry from your original claim that Obama’s number one donor was Planned Parenthood. But I think I’ve pointed out your many lies and evasions here sufficiently.
Goodnight, hateful bitch.
That is SO unChristlike of you. Jesus will not give you dream dates in heaven!
But thanks for giving me a few good laughs.
And MY GOD really…the ONLY thing you could talk about for hours were the PP donations and how I couldn’t come up with the link? And how my teacher forced me to sleep with boys? No one forced me to do a damn thing!! It’s just when 9th graders are handed birth control, told how great sex is, and to go have fun…well, that’s what they tend to fucking do. Why do you think the abortion rate is SO HIGH? I refrained from profanity up until this point, but really….you are a sad, pathetic piece of waste. And now, instead of praying for you, I am going to go pray for forgiveness for myself, as I really think you are a piece of garbage….and Jesus (as you first referred to in the beginning of this thread..as someone’s values you did admire and you admired those who upheld his values)..well Jesus wouldn’t want me thinking you are a piece of fucking trash not even fit for a landfill. But alas, I am a sinner just like we all are and these are my thoughts at the moment. Goodbye, Crazy Cat Lady
Excuse me you *implied* that I claimed my teacher “forced” me to sleep with boys based on her sex education curriculum. I never said anything of the like. I brought all of that up to prove a point…that maybe that PEOPLE WHO ABSTAIN UNTIL MARRIAGE have something figured out that the rest of us DON’T. AS IN…THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, to ABSTAIN, and those that DO, WOW….so many situations they end up avoiding in the long run by abstaining and not giving in to the pressures of society to become sexually active at a young age. Thanks for taking my words out of context and using them to make fun of me. Like I said, you are a piece of fucking shit. The only person that would be able to like you would be Jesus. Because no one else can probably even stand your ass.
“You are a piece of fucking shit.”
Spoken like a true follower of Jesus! You can’t make this shit up, people!
And I can’t vouch for my ass (it’s seen better days, truth to tell), but a whole lot of folks love me for my mind, my wit, my talent, my grumpiness — and I don’t even have to fuck them to get their approval. Ain’t life grand!
“You are a piece of fucking shit.”
Oh no, Sheena used the f-bomb after spending so much time telling us how bad that is and after Natalie told us that all we had to offer is insults (even though we’ve all — from Ian on down — offered quite a lot of substantive evidence of why the church is in the wrong here). So I guess that means that Sheena doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say ever!
Of course, we already knew that before the swears came in, but it’s nice to see even more hypocrisy on display.
Sheena, if you’d owned up to your “misinformation” in the first place, then it wouldn’t have been a problem. I gave you the Open Secrets link, and you dodged and weaved and brought in racist bullshit about “black genocide.” (Because black women obviously can’t be trusted to make their own reproductive health decisions, right? It’s got to be some grand conspiracy!)
If you don’t like having your ass handed to you, don’t show it in the first place. You had every opportunity to back off from your ridiculous claims and lies early on, but you didn’t. You double down on the stupid, I double down on the facts. That’s how I roll.
And I don’t actually care what Jesus thinks, either. I mean, he was a cool dude and I wish more people who claim to follow him would read what he actually said but again – SECULAR HUMANIST ATHEIST. Religious arguments just don’t have much sway with me. Though I do so love it when people who think they’ve found faith and truth implode at the slightest provocation into calling other people “bitches” and “trash.” Seems like all that faith hasn’t helped you with your anger issues, huh?
And please explain what’s wrong with being a Crazy Cat Lady? Is it simply code for “YOU’RE NOT HOT ENOUGH TO GET A LOT OF COCK LIKE I DID!!!” Because if so — guilty as charged. But I’d say my life has worked out pretty well at any rate.
#ohsnap
HA. HA. HA. HA. So I was right…I outed you as the Crazy Cat Lady. That just made my night!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
And according to Planned Parenthood, there’s nothing wrong with getting “lots of cock.” Enjoy your cats and your prozac!! OH SNAP!!! LMFAO!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..
Maybe if you got off your couch for five seconds instead of being glued to a computer indefinitely and foaming at the mouth with your own bullshit, your ass might be in better shape and start to see better days. Just a thought….
… wow, watching Sheena’s complete incoherent self destruction is just exhilarating. I call total Poe.
Actually, I’m just baffled by the phrase. “Blessed Be” is typically Wiccan. Has it jumped over interfaith lines now?
Sheena seems pretty confused about a lot of things, so who the hell knows? I mean, one minute she’s telling me she’ll pray for me, the next she’s calling me a “hateful bitch.”
I’m a woman of many faiths….not just one. You are obviously a follower of great nothingness.
I don’t follow YOU, so obviously I don’t follow “great nothingness.” And it seems like your faith – or faiths — isn’t/aren’t helping you right now with your unfounded anger.
she’s angry, the poor dear. it’s from all the fuckin’ in high school to gain boys’ approval.
Ok, so you can cuss at me all day/night long but when I come back atcha than I have anger issues.MMMKKKAYY
ABL, she HAD to do it ! According to Sheena, it was practically the only way her teacher would give her a passing grade. (Would still LOVE to have links to news coverage, etc. of this legendary teacher of Sheena’s who was fired. I mean, she wouldn’t LIE about that, right?)
I haven’t been to church but twice in five years. haven’t been to confession in 15 years. I’m sure I can get a few more sins in (by insulting you in the manner in which you do so) before I do actually go. I mean, I do have to go confess to being a whore and all. Since according to you, I’ve been so busy with countless cocks over the years. Guess I’ll be in the confessional for awhile. So yeah, get off your ass and head to the gym. Then your rear-end will start to see some better days.
And according to your logic, all the women who seek abortions are (a) facing a life-threatening situation, (b) have been raped, (c) have been forced to bow down to their mate and became pregnant, and (d) again, their lives are threatened. You LOVE to say no one forced me to have sex with boys, but yet, the majority (as in the ones who weren’t raped, still doesn’t make it right to kill the baby) the MAJORITY of the woman who have abortions had sex and NO ONE FORCED THEM TO DO SO. So how about they own up to THEIR choices in life and admit that no one made the choice to spread their legs but themselves. Seems to me, I took on my responsibility after having sex and getting pregnant, by giving birth.
The central point of Ian’s original post (which has undoubtedly been lost — and was apparently never found in your case) is that there is no morality WITHOUT choice.
“Aside from all this though, a choice made under coercion is no choice at all.” Hear hear!
I wouldn’t interfere with any woman’s decision to give birth, terminate a pregnancy, give a baby up for adoption, choose to co-parent with a female partner, etc., etc. Holy Mother Church, Inc., on the other hand, doesn’t believe that ANY woman (not just the ones who are practicing Catholics) deserves the same courtesy of assuming that they can best act as their own moral agents when it comes to managing their reproductive and family arrangements. And most infuriating, they claim the divine right to do so whether or not a woman is a Catholic or not — despite the fact that (no matter what fictional version of the Constitution Mark has), this country’s founding principles WERE NOT “God,” but separation of church and state.
I never said anyone forced me to have sex. And I sure as shit didn’t make up some fairytale about how my high school sex ed teacher (who was later allegedly fired in your enlargement of the tale) spun this whole “have lots of sex and boys will like you” curriculum. (Again, if you could provide links to this case, that would be great — I find it difficult to believe that such a juicy story would have gone under the radar of at least local news in the area.)
So it doesn’t actually matter to me WHY a woman chooses to have an abortion. It is her CHOICE. It is her decision. The forced-birthers, ironically, are the ones who denigrate the role of babies by casting them as “punishment” for “sluts” who had sex. “HA HA HA SHOULD’VE KEPT YOUR LEGS CROSSED AND NOW YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BABY NEENER NEENER NEENER THAT’LL TEACH YOU, YOU FILTHY WHORE!”
Sweetheart, being a hot piece of tight man-pleasing fuck-ass is your lifelong obsession, not mine.
“I never said anyone forced me to have sex. And I sure as shit didn’t make up some fairytale about how my high school sex ed teacher (who was later allegedly fired in your enlargement of the tale) spun this whole “have lots of sex and boys will like you” curriculum. (Again, if you could provide links to this case, that would be great — I find it difficult to believe that such a juicy story would have gone under the radar of at least local news in the area.)”
I never said anyone forced me to have sex either (unless you want to count me being raped twice, the first time me being a virgin). I simply pointed out the message that was given in my sex ed class and the same message that is given out all over the country. You hand out pills and condoms to tweens and it sends the message that that’s what is normal behavior to engage in in prepubescent relationships. Same goes for teens. If I remember correctly, part of the speech given was “Sex is healthy for all human beings. Lots of people view sex as “dirty”, but it’s not. It’s a completely healthy way to express feelings for someone else. It feels good, too. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Nothing shameful in that. If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you both want to truly please one another, don’t be ashamed to do so. And I am here to provide you with all of the products to do so safely. If you have a boy or a girl that likes you, and you like them, exploring your sexuality is a great way to really get to know each other.” No this type of speech wasn’t given at an adult sex-toy party. This was given in a 9th grade classroom. And this was ALL part of the curriculum. Only when Ms. Sex Obsessed Teacher started handing out dildos three years after I graduated did parents flip out and she was fired. Ever live in a small town? A LOT of things don’t make the papers. Especially in Republican country…we wouldn’t want to look like we’ve imposed bad values on our children or anything.
I’m not married either, dumbass. I just said that you must not be married or even have a life for that matter to spend hours upon hours sitting behind a computer screen like a wussy spewing venom. Go cuddle with your cats.
Ah Sheena, you’re just upset that because (unlike you, apparently) I didn’t spend most of my formative years with a cock down my throat and in other orifices, I managed to get a good education, a nice job, a lovely circle of friends and family and professional colleagues, financial independence, and develop a better gift for argument (and sure, invective), than you’re capable of demonstrating.
And I will cuddle with my cats, thanks. They’re quite lovely.
Not that there’s anything wrong with getting a lot of cock, mind you. It just doesn’t seem to have helped you develop your intellectual and rhetorical skills.
Good for you. I see you are so busy with all of that…considering you have so much time to sit on here. Excuse me, I have to go suck on my daily cock for awhile and I’ll be back.
You must have had a cock in one of your orifices at one point in time in order to become pregnant and have to go get an abortion.
Oh sure — I just didn’t make a career out of it and I didn’t let my relationships with men define my whole life. You’re the one who came in here claiming that we’re the Pro-Promiscuity People and how all that uncontrolled sex you had to have because of your sex-ed teacher (and I’m still calling horseshit — journalists in small towns LOVE scandal and a teacher being fired for sex ed is catnip, so again — links or it didn’t happen).
And um — you’ve been spending as much time here as I have. So I guess being a mommy doesn’t actually take up all your precious time and make you perfectly happy, given how many times you’ve come here to scream at us about — shit, who even knows at this point? But please don’t stop — you have no idea how much amusement you’re providing. Kinda like the dancing dwarf in “The Birthday of the Infanta.”
“Overweight, freckled bully”? Why do I get a feeling this isn’t generic, but refers to some specific figure from your past?
At any rate, I’M married. No cats, though. Do I win a prize?
Makabit, if you haven’t produced offspring, then clearly your life is a sad empty shell and a fraud.
Well, I’m working on it! Sheesh! Don’t rush me!
I’m thinking that Sheena is NOT going to be praying for me after all. Dang.
i have a friend who’s a unitarian reverend. she’s awesome. she’ll pray for ya.
“”Finally, Is there any follower of this blog, Ian, that don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to say “Priests abuse boys, fuck, fuckers,” when they hear the words “Catholic Church”?”"
Wow, you’re on a little kick of self-righteousness here, ain’t ya?
Yes. Me.
I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction of that sort at all. I have worked for Catholic schools for years, and I have enormous admiration for the Church.
That doesn’t mean I gloss over the incredible evil that was done for decades as the hierarchy chose to protect adult clergy instead of the children of the faithful.
Any more casual stereotypes about the readers of this blog that I can help clear up?
I think “Sheena” has finally snapped.
the violent mood swings. the repressed anger. the maniacal laughter. the complete failure to understand the point of kerry’s comment.
what fun!
At least I’m not the CRAZY CAT LADY. I KNEW it! Made my night. And yes, what fun! Cheers to you folks! Clink!! Until next time!
Yes, Sheena. You win. I’m a Crazy Cat Lady — and you’re a moron who thought you had to fuck men in order to be popular.
And if this “made your night,” then your nights must be unbearably sad and lonely. My condolences. Honestly.
It made my night to sit back and laugh at all of your ridiculous arguments and insults. There’s nothing wrong with having cats. I used to have two. But I know a lot of sad, lonely people surrounded by 12 cats who spend their time on blogs and in chat rooms insulting other people because they are so miserable with their own lives. And I figured you are miserable, based on your hateful responses. You admitted to being the cat lady, so I assume you fit the “typical” Crazy Cat Lady mold. Considering you assume I fit the “lying racist troll” mold.
ABL, I’ve been around a lot of unhappy Catholic women in my extended family. I’m quite familiar with the condition.
Just noting that we got this fucking thread to 200 comments. Woo Hoo! Where’s My ABL/ Crazy Cat Lady/Hateful Bitch t-shirt?
Wherever Mark’s Troll/Misogynist Idiot shirt is, I’m sure. :) I’m sure his wife and three little girls would really love that one.
Right. Because misogynists can never marry women and have daughters. You just found the gender equivalent of “But I have black friends!”
Kerry,
Why don’t you leave Mark the fuck alone.
LEAAAAAAVE MARK ALOOOOOOONE!!!!!11one
He started it, Mom!
I think I’ll just go ahead and quote myself:
Wow, this post has gotten…epic since I logged off.
Thanks for proving me right Sheena about how these type of posts often bring out the crazies. It’s nice to see someone be turn from “compassionate” and “caring” to foaming in the mouth insane the minute someone calls them out on their bullshit and proves them wrong. That’s always a joy to watch.
And for the record, I’m single but I don’t own any pets. I have a loving family though.
Indeed, they do bring out the “crazies” in many people. But, with the exception of Sheena, all of the name-calling, crude insults, etc. (such as “any child brought up by you will be unfit to live,” “misogynist idiot,” “troll,” “racist,” etc., were stated by those who agreed with the original article, and disagree with the Church. So… most of the crazies coming out here are pretty one-sided.
Uh, Natalie, did you miss Sheena’s initial strawman/ad hominem suggestion that we were all promoting a harmful and promiscuous lifestyle? (“The ways you all speak of to live…well they got me no where.” Perhaps your fine discerning mind can point out where ANYONE on this thread suggested that no-strings-attached sex is a “way to live.”
Or her numerous lies about Planned Parenthood being Obama’s number-one supporter and her calling anyone who disagreed with this by using facts and reality stupid? Or her racist suggestion that black people should be against abortion because it’s a plot against their survival — a point she admits she raised solely because of the name of this blog, without attempting to understand why it’s called Angry Black Lady Chronicles? Or her unhinged attacks on me?
If you can’t stand the heat, go back to the kitchen.
So…because you and others disagreed with the things I wrote, then that was fine of you and others to throw vicious personal attacks at me? Then when I finally throw some back, I get called a crazy, foaming at the mouth lunatic? If you dish it out, expect it to be handed back to you eventually. Don’t like personal attacks and crude language? Then don’t use them as part of your arguments!
Sheena, your initial argument that people here were advocating for a lifestyle that you found damaging when nobody did any such thing was the first attack. Whether you realize it or not, claiming without any factual basis that the people who oppose the church and support Planned Parenthood must obviously not understand the emotional/physical consequences of sex before one is ready was insulting.
So — take your own advice next time. And when you’re called out on a lie (as you were with the Planned Parenthood funding), don’t dig in once it’s been amply demonstrated that you were incorrect or lying.
And um, you’ll notice that most of the insults were directed AT Sheena — returning in kind what she dished out.
And here’s the funny thing: I care a lot more about the lives of women who are here than I do the feelings and “faith” of those who denigrate the lives of women and steadfastly insist that it’s better a woman die to keep Holy Mother Church Inc. happy than to assist in an abortion that could save her life. So if insulting people who believe letting women die is a badge of moral superiority is somehow “crazy,” well, sign me with Ozzy for a trip on that train. Better insane than a sanctimonious meddling misogynist whose “beliefs” end up killing women.
That’s because my morality is based on taking care of ACTUAL LIVING PEOPLE who are here. Not a centuries-long system of superstition and avarice and powermongering that, though it has certainly produced many good people of charity over the years, has in the main served as a force of repression and abuse — from the Crusades right up to the Magdalen Laundries. Any good that has been done by the Church in the name of attending to the sick, elderly, and poor can easily be done outside of it as well. And at least when I make donations to the Greater Chicago Food Depository or Chicago Women’s Health Center or any of the other numerous nonprofits — local, national, and international — that I support, I’m pretty certain that they won’t be diverting funds I donate to cover up child abuse or to defend their right to discriminate.
can i get an amen.
and for such a christ-like person, sheena has demonstrated herself to be a real hateful [redacted.]
Who said I was Christ-like? Did I not admit to being a fallen member of the church just like nearly everyone else on this thread?
Hey Kerry,
I’m just writing to say after having a night to cool off and think about it, I’m really sorry for trying to insult you in this public way via my earlier–very long–comment. I don’t know know you personally. I don’t know what happened to you or so one close to you to make the catholic church appear so ugly to you. I don’t know what personal hurt the church or other catholics have caused you but they obviously left a mark…and I don’t want to be another reason to be angry with the church. I’m sorry for whatever has happened to give you this view of catholics, but above all I’m really sorry for the personal things I wrote earlier.
I hope this doesn’t sound condescending but would you mind if I prayed for you? My temper doesn’t mix very well with this type of arguing format but if you don’t mind, I would like to keep you in my prayers.
It sounds very condescending, Mark – complete with your assumption that the mere fact of being a woman with free will and a brain isn’t enough to turn me off from the misogyny (and homophobia — I’m not gay, but many dear friends and family members are) of the church. No, I must have been scarred and damaged in some way by some specific incident. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be anything INHERENT in the belief systems of your church and the thuggish way that the church tries to force its beliefs into secular law that would make me angry.
Pray all you want. Makes no difference to me.
On further reflection, Mark, your comments are even worse than they appeared. I’ve posted several times here about the church excommunicating a nun who tried to save a woman’s life by suggesting that she consider an abortion. I’ve posted about Catholic Charities threatening not to adopt out kids in foster care to gay couples who use Illinois’ new civil-unions law — or to get out of the adoption business altogether – simply because TEH GAY SEX disgusts them (even though Jesus said damn little about being gay OR about abortion). I have pointed out — and Natalie has (blithely) confirmed — that in the church’s view, it’s better to do nothing and let a woman die than to risk damage to a non-ectopic fetus. Because fully alive and full-grown woman is NOT more important than the precious clump of tissues. (At this point, since the church spends far more time worrying about abortion than Jesus ever did, they may as well go ahead and nail the images of zygotes to the crucifixes in their church to make it clear what their real object of worship and concern is.)
And then there’s the church fighting to outlaw stem-cell research that could help people with many terrible diseases. And the church’s longstanding history of abuse of vulnerable children – from the Magdalen Laundries and the Christian Brothers in Ireland to too many incidents to recall in the United States. And your response to THAT being brought up was “LEAVE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH ALOOOONE!”
And then, with all that evidence, all you can do is say “Well, gee, you must have been fucked up and made damaged goods by some total outlier thing in the church.” Because Holy Mother Church Inc. can never fail in your eyes. It can only BE failed by those who are not of perfect smug sanctimonious faith. And I’m guessing that you’ve never been PERSONALLY affected by the homophobia of the church, or its misogyny. So it’s all good with you — especially given how much more important you get to be because of being born with man-bits and “wives submit unto your husbands” and all that stuff.
Your attitude really is no different than Jamie Dimon or any of the other venture/vulture capitalists who dismiss the concerns of Occupy or any other protesters as jealousy, or stemming from some underlying psychological condition. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be that the power structure you support is itself corrupt to the core, right? Nope — must be something bad that happened to this one crazy angry chick. “WOMEN — AMIRITE?!”
OK, let me see if I can summarize this.
Ian posted his opinions about why Catholic claims that they should not be forced to offer their secular employees health care that covers all of their health needs, including reproductive health and family planning, lack a solid logical grounding.
Then a woman who admits that she was too stupid to understand the rudimentary sex education that was offered to her came along to tell us more than anyone ever wanted to know about the sad, dim, cramped, pathetic parade of fail that has been her miserable travail on earth, all of which is someone else’s fault, and how that makes her the arbiter of how other, less willfully stupid peoples’ health care choices should be limited.
In other news, we’ve almost finished building the wall around this comments thread, so I would advise Kerry and any others who don’t want to be bricked in with Sheena, Queen of the Bungle for all eternity to clear out now.
that and she has something against cats.
Well, it IS a pretty treacly musical upon reconsideration.
I dunno man, I think still thing it’s a dedicated piece of performance art.
Brick them up, but use glass brick so we can see them hoot and holler. I wonder what transparent soundproofing goes for?
I tried to make the argument in terms Catholics could understand and accept – it would have been even easier to point out the “secular” reasons that the HHS rule is good. I dunno, maybe that’s what’s gotten under certain skins.
Your argument was a thing of beauty, Ian. I know it’s gotten lost in all of this (and sure, I’ve played my part in that), but as my late father used to say “There’s no use arguing with someone whose stance is ‘My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.’”
The Sheena corollary to that would be my MOTHER’S observation: “It’s pretty useless getting in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.” But sometimes I just can’t help myself. You know how sad and pathetic and lonely we non-married non-mothers are. I mean, if I haven’t taken in cock and shit out kids for Christ, WHAT AM I, REALLY!?!?!
“3. And finally,I still think it’s laughable how every supporter of this aberration of a law finally seems to use, dumb and blind like so many lemmings, the well repeated lie, that contraceptives–and even abortive contraceptives are a form of “Health Care” When did pregnancy become an illness and selfish sexual satisfaction a right which must be supported by religious institutions? Probably about the same time a living person’s right to be protected in the womb became a choice, I suspect.” From Mark. I couldn’t agree more.
Is there actually “abortive contraceptives” out there? I’ve always wondered, but the only pointers I get are generally to Plan B, which has about as much effaciacy in aborting anything as a handgun as a surgical implement.
Man, I need to think these analogies through a little, even if the idea of some moron trying to perform surgery with a semi-automatic is funny. Still, Plan B ain’t abortin’ anything.
StarStorm, yes there are abortion pills out there, namely RU-486. (non-surgical abortion) A woman takes the first pill, within hours, she begins cramping. She takes the second pill, her cramps increase, she begins bleeding heavily and within days she dispels a dead fetus (baby). Many deaths of women have been reported due to the uncontrollable amounts of bleeding and the fact that body parts of the fetus remain in her uterus, causing infection. If you go to PP’s page, they offer this as a service. You go in, they examine you, and send you home with the pills.
Oh hey, yeah, I forgot about RU-486. Thanks.
Guess I’m not such a moron after all. You’re welcome.
even morons show signs of intelligence on occasion.
Stopped clocks, blind squirrels, Sheena…did I leave any out?
Dumbass Has A Point
And yet childbirth is still more dangerous for women than abortion. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123)
So by your logic, we should outlaw the former. And many women are “scarred” emotionally by post-partum depression, and some (Andrea Yates) go so far as to murder their kids. So by your logic, if having kids leaves many women with lasting psychological damage, then childbirth is bad.
Mmmmmkay?
I just get tired of these misogynist fools who pretend that outlawing abortion is really about protecting the physical and emotional health of the mother, when the evidence clearly indicates that giving birth is itself FAR more dangerous (my own mother almost died at 24 giving birth to my older twin sisters — she was perfectly healthy but went into eclampsia quite suddenly). And we all know that post-partum depression exists and can be deadly, so clearly there can be psychological damage associated with childbirth as well.
More to the point, the binary thinkers of the anti-abortion movement can never understand that a woman can have an abortion AND still have a baby, or have a baby and THEN have an abortion. In their narrow little minds, there are only the GOOD women who “choose life” and the awful hedonist murderers who kill their precious babies.
So do they think that a woman who had an abortion should NOT be allowed to have a subsequent child? I mean, we wouldn’t let a known murderer adopt a kid, so why would the church let a woman who had an abortion go on to have a child? Should that woman be forced to adopt the kid out to a non-murdering couple? What about a woman who has kids but then seeks an abortion? Shouldn’t we take her kids away — we can’t let them live with a MURDERER, for fuck’s sake!
And if gay people can’t be parents because “one man, one woman” is the way it’s supposed to be and that’s what God intended for raising kids, shouldn’t we outlaw single motherhood for that matter and have forced adoption for single women who “choose life,” because they’re denying their children the all-important role of the father otherwise?
Generally, whenever I raise these questions, the answer from the faithful is some variant on standing with fingers in their ears yelling “LA LA LA SHUT UP LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE YOU HATE GOD FUCK YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU JESUS LOVES ME BETTER THAN YOU!”
Missed the “Mr. Mackey” reference from South Park. He always said “…(something) is bad, mmmmkay?” as part of his lines.
Oh, ha! Yes, I did miss that.
And while we’re on the topic of foisting morality on people — if the church really believes divorce is bad and that marriage between one man and one woman is the bedrock of society — shouldn’t they be trying to outlaw divorce? And don’t we as a society have an obligation to punish those awful miscreants who end their marriages? (And don’t give me any malarkey about “well, I was unhappy” or “my life was in danger because he/she was beating me” or “he was molesting our children.”)
I mean, at the very LEAST, anyone who gets divorced should never be allowed to remarry — within the church or out of it, because it’s already been established that the church believes it can make laws for everyone based on its own view of morality. And I think that wouldn’t go far enough. We need to consider jail time or heavy fines for these terrible immoral monsters who ruin the fabric of society for all of us with the big red-wine-and-beet-juice stain of broken marital vows.
In fact, stoning adulterers! Yeah, let’s get back to Old Testament justice! Screw that “God is Love” stuff! Eat a lobster? DIE, SINNER!
you have won this thread four thousand times over.
Curious as to whether current Catholic health insurance plans cover Viagra prescriptions for men who are single, divorced, or remarried.
Kerry, you are just figging amazing! I’m in awe of you.
To answer your question Catholics are married forever in the eyes of the Church. Annulments of marriage can be obtained so the persons can remarry but they are difficult, time consuming and cost $$$.
Theoretically, a person can divorce but may not remarry, at least in the Church and may no longer take communion. This is my understanding but I haven’t been “Catholic” in 50 years so I could be wrong. I don’t know how the Newt got in but it is truly amazing what $$$ can buy.
And you know, after all of this, I still have no fucking clue what Sheena’s point is about sex education — she tells us that nobody FORCED her to sleep with boys but then goes on and on and on about this (almost undoubtedly apocryphal) sex-ed teacher who got fired for handing out dildos who somehow had undue influence over the students. (And again — as a journalist, I can tell you that there is no way that happened in a public school and didn’t get coverage. In fact, the more conservative the town, the MORE likely it was to be covered — we’re talking about people who protest community theater productions of “Angels in America,” for pete’s sake.)
So — um? WTF? She says she made the choice to have sex, but she’s still somehow victimized by sex education, even though her teacher didn’t force her to have sex with boys to be popular, but she was told by her teacher that the way to be popular was to have sex? Is that about it? I think I’ve missed a few of the exit ramps in the Pretzel Logic turnpike.
Seriously, there is a great discussion to be had about how to do abstinence education ALONG with contraception and STD prevention education. Obviously abstinence-only is a failure. (Hiya, Bristol!) And despite Sheena’s flogging this myth, the standard for public-school sex ed curricula that aren’t abstinence-only isn’t “Sex is great, put on a condom, take a pill, go to town!” I’m not saying that there aren’t people who might HEAR that, but they weren’t TOLD that. Availability of birth control doesn’t mean people are compelled to screw anymore than availability of ciggies and booze means they’re going to be addicted to those legal substances.
It’s undeniable that we live in a society with very messed-up messages about sex for teenagers, especially girls. (Though I think boys are pressured more than they’d admit — and the Penn State atrocities have pointed out that there is a great degree of male sexual abuse that still goes undiscussed.) But not everyone who goes through sex ed ends up lost in the thickets of poor self-esteem and screwing for approval and popularity. Just as not everybody who reads fashion magazines ends up with an eating disorder — even though the body-image messages we’re surrounded with are also screwy. So what makes someone more vulnerable to the wrong messages? That’s the question I’d really like to see addressed.
But here’s the thing: in my view, the Catholic Church FEEDS that messed-up message by telling girls on the one hand that the best role for them in the church is as wife-and-mother (or as a nun, as long as they don’t get too “activist,” in which case the Vatican will investigate them. Because it’s the NUNS who have been the real source of scandal in the American church, of course – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html?pagewanted=all). So how can they be surprised when the church mostly prizes the sexual-procreative aspects of being a woman, and then women end up with “unplanned” pregnancies?
Well done, Ian. I have a degree in theology from a Catholic University. I was taught by some very progressive priests and nuns. They always taught doctrine from the point of view of personal responsibility and morality.
There was never a question about the institution imposing its will on people who disagreed. Part of the Catholic teaching is that God gave us free will. What we choose to do with it is our problem. The Church existed to teach us fallible humans what the Church thinks God wants. The Church was created to shepherd the flock not command it.
The priests and nuns that taught me would never publicly support contraception. They were, however, realistic enough to know that the dorms were full of us sinners and were more than happy to privately encourage us to use protection when we didn’t use restraint.
For the Church hierarchy to claim that the government is forcing to to go against its own doctrine is just plain irresponsible.
Oh and Ian, in answer to your question about current health plans in Catholic organizations vis a vis men’s reproductive health.
Friends of mine who worked for Catholic Charities in these parts had health plans that cover viagra etc. There’s no restraint on being single, remarried or whatever. At least one of the plans covers birth control as well with a small co-pay. Also a number of the caseworkers there had children out of wedlock and nothing was said.
It’s funny. I actually have been following this story with some interest, since I’ve been on healthcare plans that did not cover my birth control three separate times, once as a graduate student at a Catholic university, once as a teacher for the Diocese of Oakland, and once as a teacher at a Catholic high school.
At the college, I asked if they’d prescribe birth control if I brought in a note from my rabbi, but although they were amused, they said no.
So I went to Planned Parenthood.
I was never wildly angry about the hole in the coverage, but I favor closing the loophole. My thinking about this is simple. My health coverage is something I am given as part of my salary. It is my call how I use it, and what I spend my resources on. Just as the Church does not tell me what to do with the money they pay me for teaching, neither should they tell me what to do with the money that is paid to Kaiser so that I can see a doctor.
Two cents from an actual employee of Catholic agencies.
This has been one hell of a thread, though.