26 prominent Catholics back Sebelius pick

One of the facts you distort is the veto. She vetoed the legislation because the basic prinicples of it were illegal and would have tied up the Kansas Legistlature in a very expensive and long running legal challenges. She did her job as she was supposed to. That little fact was selectively omitted. An omission which distorted the truth of the situation, which turned the statement you made into a lie.

She has received donations from a lot of people. From a lot of lobbies. Why do you choose to single out this one? Your statement is a deliberate distortion of her true position and a deliberate attempt to tarnish her character to suit your own personal agenda. Sebelius is not pro-abortion. She is a public servant devoted to serving the best interests of her state. Selectively omitting facts to change tarnish a persons character is a lie.

Yes, her bishop did tell her that. At the same time, he did not give the same "guidance" to the catholic male members who voted for the same bill. Basically, Bishop Naumann singled her out because she is female, and as an attempt to use extortion and his position to force her to run the Kansas legislature the way he wanted her to, which in this particular case, was not in the best interest of the state. I applaud her for "ignoring" Bishop Nauman's attempted extortion. Bishop Nauman is guilty of a multitude of sins as a result of his actions in this situation.

Whether you and other "faithful orthodox" like it or not, this is a democracy, where we make rules that benefit the majority, not the select few who think that they are the chosen ones. Whether you like it or not, in the overall scheme, catholics are a minority of the overall population, perhaps 25% at best (and that number includes the disaffected). That does not give this group the right to dictate morality to the other 75%. You have a right to your personal opinion, a right to use the democratic process. Not a right to use blackmail, extortion, deceit and hate.

As we have seen so often, "faithful orthodox" has come to mean use any means necessary, no matter how twisted, to achieve the desired goal. Lies, no problem, the end justifies it. Extortion, no problem, the end justifies. Deceit, no problem, the end justifies it. Character assassination, no problem, the end justifies the means. This and more is the legacy the "faithful orthodox" are leaving the church.

All of those who have taken this path have left a basic prinicple of catholicism in their dust - honest and integrity. Bishops lied to us during the election to force the catholic block to vote republican. Antiabortionists supported their lies using false statistics and hate rhetoric.

Regarding the rate, that is a distortion as well. Kansas has a rate of 19 per thousand. Rhode Island has a rate of 22 per thousand. Delaware has 22 per thousand. Texas has 15 per thousand. Does that mean that Texas has a better record and RI and DE worse? Which is the worse record?

Given the total population of each state, just in numbers, Rhode Island is far less grave. Both DE and RI have a higher rate than Kansas but total numbers are far lower. Again, the numbers were distorted in an attempt to deceive the audience. When you consider total state population, the Kansas drops way down in the rating. That is a lie as well. Omission of pertinent facts in order to deceive an audience is a lie.

Lying, Deceit, Extortion, Character Assassination etal are all violations of numerous catechism and of the basic priniciples of Christianity and Catholicism. There is not one record of Christ ever being deceitful. Not one. There is a plethora of public records showing "faithful orthodox" and the clergy being deceitful and doing far worse in the "name of Jesus". That, is the ultimate blasphemy. Abortion is horrendous. Lying in the name of Jesus is far worse.

by the way, my source for the abortion statistics:

Rate of Legal Abortions per 1,000 Women Aged 15-44 Years by State of Occurrence, 2005

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=10&ind=465

Father, you minimize the implications of "criminalizing" abortion - which has never really been done. According to Archbishop Wurl, abortion was previously punished with a fine, which prevented most doctors from offering abortions without actually preventing the illegal variety. Unless a way is found to grant legal personhood to the unborn (which was not the case prior to Roe), abortion cannot be criminalized. Doing so at conception, or even implantation, has implications that you simply do not realize (unless you like the prospect of ambulance chasers seeking their bread and butter by having parents who have miscarried file for wrongful death claims against their OBs - which most insurers will settle if they insure OBs at all).

As to disposable income, if the level you suggest were provided - and why should it not be - as last time I checked the Magisterium called for living wages - the number of abortions would go down. If your area Catholic High School provided free tuition to teen parents and paid them a living wage to support the child (and Catholic colleges and much needed vocational institutions did the same) you would also see fewer abortions. If you quit demonizing teen sexuality, Catholic parents would not push their teens into abortions. It is much easier to talk about criminalizing abortion than actually doing something about it.

Parents should be given a living wage regardless of whether they intend abortions. That is what the "Option for the Poor" means. Now, because business cannot afford to do this, the government should provide a tax credit which has the same effect - paid either to the employer or the employee. It should be big enough that every child is celebrated - even if the husband is not the father. In other words, it should not only keep the same level of disposable income - it should INCREASE IT!

Your slavery metaphor is a bit tired, especially given the fact that the Republican Party has done everything possible through prison work, the underfunding of the wage and hour and workplace safety administrations of the Department of Labor and the further demonization of migrant workers to actually increase slavery in the United States. Conservatives have no business using slavery in an abortion metaphor when its policies are actually bringing it back. Running them out of town on a rail was the best thing that could happen for workers.

When the air is cleared we are left with the question as to whether we want to reduce and if possible eliminate abortions (Though evne a change in the law will not do that.) or whether we want to make noise. We had 16 years of presidents who in their campaigns made anti abortion people feel good but who did nothing to dimiish abortion. Being against abortion I would rather have a governor who, realizing that she cannot change the law, does what she can to diminish abortion than one who runs on a plank that will make the righteous happy but at the same time does nothing to diminish abortions.

To Unhinged Mike

Not just unregistered.

You have no feeling for human beings, often innocent, who are routinely executed or soldiers slaughtered at war but mourn for a filthy fetus, even as a result of rape.

You hide behind your nick because you are afraid to confront reality and honest people and can do nothing more than throw about meaningless biblical quotations. Have you no shame ?

Jesus clearly indicated that he was against the dealth penalty but not against abortion. Like gay marriage, the Church has only recently condemned abortion.
Those popes and bishops who bark against abortion are obviously not imitating the one they claim to represent: their leader and founder of Christianity never said a word about either abortion nor homosexuality. So why are those power-hungry, misogynous and homophobic bachelors spending most of their time on non-issues and ignoring the Sermon on the Mount Gospels entirely?

Please review your thinking and opinions.
They are diametrically opposed to common sense and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Your minimising of warfare and the death penalty is appalling and contrary to Divine Will and your pro-death stance is unacceptable. We see the true face of those hypocritical "pro-life" Catholics who use the Church's teaching simply as a repressive tool to rule the world and make people miserable. Have you no shame?

Interesting comment anonymous:

"warmonger" or a "death penalty" supporter... anyhow.
Niether of those two catagories are intrinsically evil"

Interesting that you propose that when cluster bombs fall on a residential area, bombs dropped by "faithful" catholics, the death of non-combatant women, children and unborn is not evil.

Interesting that you propose that it is acceptable to terminate a human life for a crime. What crimes? Stealing bread? Disagreeing with the RCC leadership? Criticizing the pope? All of these and more have been punished by death in the past. Are you suggesting we continue the tradition?

By what authority do you maintain that it is not evil to end a human life in war or for a crime?

Anonymous vs. Anonymous

How do you tell one anonymous from another and how to you deal with them?

If a lie is repeated often and strongly enough, it because a truth.

The Bush officials repeated over an over again that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the conservative public eventually believed that to be true. They eventually accepted it as justification for their invasion and occupation of a foreign country.

The Vatican prelates repeat relentlessly that abortion and homosexuality are abominations, indeed the only real sins worth condemning and traditionalist Catholics eventually believe that to be so. They will eventually accept that as justification for the excommunication of those who practice them.

There are 13 reasons why the Personhood Amendment is great for Republican Party fundraising and organization and not much else (meaning it will never be ratified). Need I list them?

Maine, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, California, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Michigan, Wisconsin - I could go on.

Congess can already grant personhood to the unborn, and likely will in the third and possibly the second trimesters. Obama will likely sign it. It will likely contain the same kind of health exemption granted to doctors in separating conjoined twins. (Like it or not, doctors do make life or death choices every day). Expect many to think the battle over after this happens, which is why the leadership of the movement is scared to death, as their meal ticket is about to be voided.

Congress could, of course, go to conception. This Congress won't, but a GOP Congress could. They won't, though, as their major donors are mostly pro-choice (or didn't you know you were voting for hypocrits).