When you get a chance, surf over to CNN's website and play the videos and read its narrative about children in Vietnam living at a garbage dump and how they are bought, sold, and traded to provide sex to predators. After doing so, commune with your God and ask him(?) if he could be a little more judicious about where and to what extent he sprinkles those gifts over the Earth.

For what it is, I found this at another message board. So the link is news, but the quote is someone's opinion who posted said link.

Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the Federal government in 2010



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for...ml?pagewanted=2

Back on IvyLeaguer bringing up PP teaching kids about sex, I found this fascinating nugget:





http://scienceprogress.org/2012/02/mississippians-are-ready-for-comprehensive-sex-education/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/article...abortion_issue/

EDIT - Fmr. Jeopardy! champ Ken Jennings tweeted this tonight:

GOP strategist Alex Castellanos:

It's right up there with eating and breathing.

Here's Gary Wills' take on the situation. For those who aren't familiar with Wills, he's a liberal Catholic scholar and a brilliant writer. I don't agree with him on everything he writes about, but I think he nailed it here.

Contraception’s Con Men

Garry Wills, The New York Review of Books

February 15, 2012

By a revolting combination of con men and fanatics, the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office. Take the controversy over contraceptives. American bishops at first opposed having hospitals and schools connected with them pay employee health costs for contraceptives. But when the President backed off from that requirement, saying insurance companies can pay the costs, the bishops doubled down and said no one should have to pay for anything so evil as contraception. Some Republicans are using the bishops’ stupidity to hurt the supposed “moderate” candidate Mitt Romney, giving a temporary leg up to the faux naïf Rick Santorum; others are attacking Barack Obama as an “enemy of religion.”

Pusillanimous Catholics—Mark Shields and even, to a degree, the admirable E. J. Dionne—are saying that Catholics understandably resent an attack on “their” doctrine (even though they do not personally believe in it). Omnidirectional bad-faith arguments have clustered around what is falsely presented as a defense of “faith.” The layers of ignorance are equaled only by the willingness of people “of all faiths” to use them for their own purposes. Consider just some of the layers:

The Phony Religious Freedom Argument

The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.

Contraception is not even a religious matter. Nowhere in Scripture or the Creed is it forbidden. Catholic authorities themselves say it is a matter of “natural law,” over which natural reason is the arbiter—and natural reason, even for Catholics, has long rejected the idea that contraception is evil. More of that later; what matters here is that contraception is legal, ordinary, and accepted even by most Catholics. To say that others must accept what Catholics themselves do not is bad enough. To say that President Obama is “trying to destroy the Catholic Church” if he does not accept it is much, much worse.

To disagree with Catholic bishops is called “disrespectful,” an offense against religious freedom. That is why there is a kind of taboo against bringing up Romney’s Mormonism. But if Romney sincerely believed in polygamy on religious grounds, as his grandfather did, he would not even be considered for the presidency—any more than a sincere Christian Scientist, who rejects the use of medicine, would be voted for to handle public health care. Yet a man who believes that contraception is evil is an aberrant from the American norm, like the polygamist or the faith healer.

The Phony Contraception Argument

The opposition to contraception has, as I said, no scriptural basis. Pope Pius XI once said that it did, citing in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) the condemnation of Onan for “spilling his seed” rather than impregnating a woman (Genesis 38.9). But later popes had to back off from this claim, since everyone agrees now that Onan’s sin was not carrying out his duty to give his brother an heir (Deuteronomy 25.5-6). Then the “natural law” was fallen back on, saying that the natural purpose of sex is procreation, and any use of it for other purposes is “unnatural.” But a primary natural purpose does not of necessity exclude ancillary advantages. The purpose of eating is to sustain life, but that does not make all eating that is not necessary to subsistence “unnatural.” One can eat, beyond the bare minimum to exist, to express fellowship, as one can have sex, beyond the begetting of a child with each act, to express love.

The Roman authorities would not have fallen for such a silly argument but for a deep historical disrelish for sex itself. Early Fathers and medieval theologians considered sex unworthy when not actually sinful. That is why virgin saints and celibate priests were prized above married couples. Thomas Aquinas said that priests must not be married, since “those in holy orders handle the sacred vessels and the sacrament itself, and therefore it is proper (decens) that they preserve, by abstinences, a body undefiled (munditia corporalis) (Summa Theologiae, Part 3 Supplement, Question 53, article 3, Response). Marriage, you see, makes for defilement (immunditia). The ban on contraception is a hangover from the period when the body itself was considered unclean, as Peter Brown overwhelmingly proved in The Body and Society (1988).

The Phony “Church Teaches” Argument

Catholics who do not accept the phony argument over contraception are said to be “going against the teachings of their church.” That is nonsense. They are their church. The Second Vatican Council defines the church as “the people of God.” Thinking that the pope is the church is a relic of the days when a monarch was said to be his realm. The king was “Denmark.” Catholics have long realized that their own grasp of certain things, especially sex, has a validity that is lost on the celibate male hierarchy. This is particularly true where celibacy is concerned.

There was broad disagreement with Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on the matter. Pope Paul VI set up a study group of loyal and devout Catholics, lay and clerical, to make recommendations. The group overwhelmingly voted to change the teaching of Pius XI. But cardinals in the Roman Curia convinced Paul that any change would suggest that the church’s teachings are not eternal (though Casti Connubii had not been declared infallible, by the papacy’s own standards).

When Paul reaffirmed the ban on birth control in Humanae Vitae (1968) there was massive rejection of it. Some left the church. Some just ignored it. Paradoxically, the document formed to convey the idea that papal teaching is inerrant just convinced most people that it can be loony. The priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley said that Humanae Vitae did more damage to the papacy than any of the so-called “liberal” movements in Catholicism. When Pius IX condemned democracy and modern science in his Syllabus of Errors (1864), the Catholic historian Lord Acton said that Catholics were too sensible to go crazy every time a pope does. The reaction to Humanae Vitae proves that.

The Phony “Undying Principle” Argument

Rick Santorum is a nice smiley fanatic. He does not believe in evolution or global warming or women in the workplace. He equates gay sex with bestiality (Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum). He equates contraception with the guillotine. Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being “sincere” and “standing by what he believes.” He is the principled alternative to the evil Moderation of Mitt Romney and the evil Evil of Newt Gingrich. He is presented as a model Catholic. Torquemada was, in that sense, a model Catholic. Messrs. Boehner and McConnell call him a martyr to religious freedom. A young priest I saw on television, modeling himself on his hero Santorum, said, “I would rather die than give up my church’s principles.” What we are seeing is not a defense of undying principle but a stampede toward a temporarily exploitable lunacy. Acton to the rescue!

This guy sounds more like a Protestant.

Holy Mother, how do you think he got in ? I often wonder instead of apples on the tree in the Garden of Eden. If there would have been Trojan's , not used of course but in all colors, packages, ribbed and colorful like rainbows ! Can you believe the beauty of this world .

Just a thought prior to the storm coming ! Now like Father Mackaey over Mash said now we shall pray !

Wills has been vilified by the Vatican time and again for questioning Church doctrine, yet maintaining that he is a true Catholic. I disagree with him heartily about many of the things he has written over the years, but I agree with him here. The Church remains in the dark ages where contraception is concerned. I've discussed it many times with different priests over the years, and you might be surprised to find out that many of them feel the same way. It's not uncommon at all to see progressive nuns handing out condoms in the more urban areas of the country.

Well Mittens sure stepped in some deep doodooo over that Blount Amendment, up for a vote tomorrow.

Allegedly, he told a reporter off-air that he either is privately against the bill or he has issues with it. Once that went public, Team Mittens quickly responded by stating that without a hint of doubt, Mittens absolutely supports the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum...jzriR_blog.html

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalin...sMqN/index.html

~I'm sure the Pro-lifers are absolutely thrilled by this.

How Mitt Roney Missed His Moment on Contraception

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...traception.html

The more I look at Mitt, the more I'm reminded of Herb Tarlek.

The more I see Mitt the more I think of George Hamilton for some reason.



TIS

I don't see it. I mean no way-



I'll be damned.

Their hair never moves.

The triumph of religious liberty.

Utah Passes Anti–Sex Ed Bill



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53660875-90/bill-education-lake-lawmakers.html.csp

Off-topic, but still:



See? It's the Feminazis' fault! Can't women do anything right?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/wo...ained-lie-about

^^^^^^^^
That's as hateful a political cartoon as I've ever seen. What does the President have to do with abortion? Especially the sitting President?

If you want to lower yourself to their level, you might want to point out that Nixon---the poster boy for all things bigoted and hateful---was the sitting President when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

Ditto!

It is a tasteless cartoon by any measure. However, nobody can deny that the current president is one of the biggest supporters of Roe v. Wade and, whether he or an opponent is in the white house next term, may have a big effect on who replaces soon-to-be retiring justices on the Supreme Court.

The the abortion thing is one of the classic examples of the liberal left forcing their agenda through the courts. Hell, even many "pro-choice" people, if they're honest, admit that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly and it should have been left up to the states. But the left knows that, like gay marriage for instance, they'll lose most of the time in the court of public opinion.

If something is a right, i.e marriage or abortion, then it is completely irrelevant as to how many people find it unpopular. That's a good thing.

Most of the right-wing people that go on about how abortion is murder don't have the courage of their convictions. If abortion is truly murder then we ought to be placing millions of women in prison for life and even a few of them on death row. That's never going to happen because sensible people realize how ridiculous it is. Sensible people also realize that the courts are unlikely to overturn Griswold vs Connecticut or its stepchild , Roe v. Wade.

It is interesting how many right-wingers are in favor of majority rule decision making on fundamental rights-that is as long as they are in the majority. When they're not, suddenly they discover a new respect for the Bill of Rights. They wax positively Madisonian they do.

There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that supports abortion. Right to Privacy, my ass. And it's hard to imprison somebody who did something that was technically legal at the time.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. And then it should be left up to the states. That's Constitutional. But even then, I would hope that abortion would only be allowed in the very rare cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Women have plenty of "choices." They can choose not to have sex. They can choose to use birth control. And they can choose to put up the child for adoption.

The "right to privacy" for which you have such contempt is what allowed contraceptives to be used by people-married couples and then also unmarried couples. Arguably it grows out of the substantive due process theories from the 5th and 14th Amendments. So it would be a neat trick to overturn Roe v. Wade without also overturning the Griswold case mentioned. Those decisions are joined at the hip.

I don't like abortion. I think it's wrong and would not be with someone who thought it possible. But the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are slim. And even it if were that would not significantly change the numbers of abortions performed. As a group, women aren't going to give up that right. They just won't. Times have changed.

I once believed that too, until I realized the practicality of such an imposed "fine line." Think about it.

We have rape trials all the time where it's practically he said/she said. Imagine those extra trials now, where the government has to determine whether we have ourselves a rape baby or not. For that matter Ivy, I predict pregnant women can accuse rape just so they can get an abortion. Why not? That smells like a good future LAW & ORDER: SVU episode.

Or for that matter, what if there is "rape" accused but there is no suspect arrested? (A safe consensus is that most rapes are unreported.) How would the courts/police determine this is a rape baby and not just someone crying rape to get an abortion? Will the cops interview neighbors and determine if she's really the local slut or not?

For that matter, how many women want to report to the government that they were raped and want to get an abortion? I would expects cops in Tehran to waste their time with such bullshit, but not American police.

Speaking of which, I'm reminded me of pot legalization. I'm all for it, but I'm not blind to the inevitable required FDA investigations and trials and inspections, standards drawn up between good, acceptable pot and the not so good if legalization was to ever happen.If you accept a broad political template for change, don't be ignorant of the practicalities.

I'm amazed how for conservatives to bitch about big government, they inevitably adopt and embrace it for their anti-government crusade. Or for that ironic matter, this position also apparently adopted by members of one of the more persecuted religious sects in American history. Also hilarious how milllions of people crave for such freedoms themselves, yet we piss them away as if they're worthless.



Roe/Wade is about choice. You adopt the defeatist, absolutist position that all pregnant women want to abort. (Just like your opinion that Iran will push the button if they get a nuke.) Here's a shocking fact: Most don't abort, even including the circumstances behind the pregnancies. God bless them if they want to carry to term. That's their right to choose whatever it is.

Nobody is putting a gun against your head to abort. This isn't China where we have sadistic, dehumanizing human household quotas.

Again, the government choosing for you? That's big government. Why do you champion that?

Personally I would rather pay for contrception than for abortions. People are gonna fuck, and I rather they have contraceptives and responsible than not. Doesn't mean they will by choice, but what can you do? The government can't inspect to make sure everybody's nose has been wiped. Some might call it lesser of the evils, I consider it the infallable position versus the controversial subject. Utah's recent "solution" is like cutting your hand off because it's itchy. Of course you have people who can't differentiate between the two, as if a condom is the same evil as sucking a fetus's brains out through a straw. As if your swimmers are living beings. (If that was so, most college freshmen are greater murderers than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined.)



What if a gay couple wants to adopt them?

The liberal left is very good at framing the debate the way they want. It's not about having the unborn child within a woman killed, usually for no good reason. It's about them exercising their "right" to choose. So that's a good thing, right?

What a bunch of HORSESHIT.

In any event, the abortion debate should go on in the states. Roe v. Wade, upheld as national law by the Supreme Court based on "right to privacy" is bogus.

It never ceases to amaze me how libs go on and on about being against war and capital punishment of murderers. But unborn children? Eh, no big deal. I think Michael Savage is a blowhard most of the time but his saying that "liberalism is a mental disorder" does ring true.

As for gays adopting. Certainly not the most optimum of situations.

I don't know. Michael Medved, who is pretty informed on this stuff, seems convinced that if the conservative justices become a majority with Ginsberg retiring soon, it will be overturned.

I was pro-choice until about 13 years ago. It's plain and simple: if one aborts their child, it means they had it killed. You did it for no other reason than convenience. You can dress that convenience in any emotion you want; it's still for convenience.

Nevertheless, as Lilo stated, substantive due process has been part and parcel of Supreme Court decisions at least since the Dred Scott decision and its not about to change. It was the basis for the Griswold decision which, in turn, was the basis for the Roe decision.

Including Reagan, Republican Presidents have appointed at least 8 judges to the Supreme Court. If Roe hasn't yet been overturned, it's not likely tobe any time soon.

I am surprised that some of you believe that the life of a child that is conceived because of rape is less valuable than any other life.