R
Riley259
Guest
Wow - a significant portion of their proceeds are aquired from the killing of babies. It’s all about the money.
- Status
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I read this from a group of Catholics discussing Planned Parenthood
- the highest estimates of allied forces deaths on D-Day
- they help disease the mother
- 97% of the members of the Nazi party never personally killed a Jew
- 1% was actually poo
- It is a death camp
- “deathscorts”
- And did you know that the Hitler’s Nazi administration built over 500 new hospitals, the entire autobann and institituted a national health care system. Did you know that less than 17% of the Jews who died during WW-II were part of the Holocaust.
- Do you have any better insights into what type of organization the German Nazi party was too?
-If a bank employee diverted 3% of your direct deposit paycheck into his own account, would you call him a “bank employee” or a “thief”?
I read this from a group of Catholics discussing Catholism. usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art8.htm#281 ]
2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282
2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.
G
gam197
Guest
Why would the two be incompatible. As a catholic, I can see that Planned Parenthood does many abortions which means a death to that child and sickness, physical and mental to the mother and father.
As I said earlier, it could be these same people using other services from Planned Parenthood.
To portray them as a "facillitator of health"would be a major stretch.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Certainly honesty and integrity are some of the highest virtues and one should strive to persevere in those. However to say that “because Planned Parenthood ONLY performs x% of abortions, it is misleading to say they are evil or an abortion clinic, etc.”, would be a mistaken assertation. Let’s see, if I kill only ONE baby (or adult, etc.) per year, that is only .3% of the days in a year. Since for the remaining 99.7% of the year I don’t kill anyone, does that mean I am a good and upstanding citizen?
It would be very interesting to hear how the argument could be made that PP is being slandered by calling it an abortion clinic. Yes, I believe Catholic teaching is that slander is wrong.
It would be very interesting to hear how the argument could be made that PP is being slandered by calling it an abortion clinic. Yes, I believe Catholic teaching is that slander is wrong.
M
manualman
Guest
Roofer, read my post before yours.
One does NOT need to prove that a person or group is UTTERLY evil and without human virtue to conclude that that person or groups goals and effects on society are harmful. People invariably hold to both good and bad moral principle unless they are already saints. Surely, we can both agree that some evil acts and values are more serious than others (murder versus gossip, for example). Surely we also agree that a variety of relative good acts don’t grant someone a pass on a horrible crime?
That is not slander, it is discernment. Which of the quotes you cited are lies? Admittedly I and some others have used some extreme examples to demonstrate the principle to you since you seem inclined to overlook the tens of thousands of killings this group commits in addition to the untold thousands more that they refer to others when their local office doesn’t do abortions onsite.
Your perspective seems to indicate that you don’t see abortion as the murder of a human being, but as, at worst, a lesser crime or misdemeanor of the kind that is outweighed by acts of charity and mercy.
One does NOT need to prove that a person or group is UTTERLY evil and without human virtue to conclude that that person or groups goals and effects on society are harmful. People invariably hold to both good and bad moral principle unless they are already saints. Surely, we can both agree that some evil acts and values are more serious than others (murder versus gossip, for example). Surely we also agree that a variety of relative good acts don’t grant someone a pass on a horrible crime?
That is not slander, it is discernment. Which of the quotes you cited are lies? Admittedly I and some others have used some extreme examples to demonstrate the principle to you since you seem inclined to overlook the tens of thousands of killings this group commits in addition to the untold thousands more that they refer to others when their local office doesn’t do abortions onsite.
Your perspective seems to indicate that you don’t see abortion as the murder of a human being, but as, at worst, a lesser crime or misdemeanor of the kind that is outweighed by acts of charity and mercy.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Planned Parenthood never ceases to thoroughly sicken me. 
R
Rosalinda
Guest
TexasRoofer,
I couldn’t agree with you more.[sign]2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
[/sign]
We are all delighted to see you are reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I couldn’t agree with you more.[sign]2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
[/sign]
We are all delighted to see you are reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
The question is who is lying? The pro-lifers or Planned Parenthood? Let the evidence speak for itself. Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics uncovered a lot of lies by PP and the NAF, (National Abortion Federation). There is no doubt about their “intention to deceive”. Worse yet, this report reveals the culture of death practices a culture of corrupting the morals of youth. Lie during the consultation, lie to parents, lie to the judge. All this to help the predators of young girls escape justice and destroy all the evidence that could convict them. When all is said and done, if one is experienced with killing, lying becomes a prerequisite tool of the trade.
childpredators.com/CoverUp.cfm
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Can you site a section of the Catechism which teaches if one of th’um lies first we can lie back? Should we write Rome and ask for a revised version?
B
Brendan
Guest
TRroofer,
you used some the statistics I presented. Could you point out where I attempted to decieve?
I simply pointed out some of the accomplishments of Nazi era German and asked you if those accomplishments inspired you to look at the Nazi’s with greater respect?
Do they?
you used some the statistics I presented. Could you point out where I attempted to decieve?
I simply pointed out some of the accomplishments of Nazi era German and asked you if those accomplishments inspired you to look at the Nazi’s with greater respect?
Do they?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
It is generally called guilt by association
If you had read the post clearly the words I used were “imply nor infer”
In general your entire post is known as a baited comment, which means it is in and of its self not completely truthful. All baited questions and comments intent to entrap some one. I know of no method to entrap someone in truth, however I have seen many entrapped either in lies or in implied lies, some of these were just and some were not.
The real question is why can you not simply make a truthful statement on the subject and let it stand?
B
Brendan
Guest
No,
It’s an examination of your premise to see how applicable it is. It’s a standard technique in logical thought.
You saw certain statistics on PP that, appearantly, caused you to view PP in a more positive light.
You seemed to imply that certain good works by an organization might justify a more positive response from those who consider the organization to be promoting evil.
I am simply investigating the logic of your premise.
I too agree that Truth cannot be entraped.
And since my points were factual, and thus cannot cause entrapment, why don’t you answer the questions.
Do the postive accomplishments of the Nazi’s cause you to view them in a more positive light.
Should others view the Nazi’s more postively because of their positive accomplishements?
If you answer truthfully and your initial premise is valid, you cannot be entraped.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
wrong, I did not have a premise, unless you want to say reminding posters Catholics are obligated to truth is my premise, yet it is not my premise at all. I was simply being the messenger
wrong, I read the statistics posted in this thread and found them inconsistent with the comments. Note the “babies they missed” “D-day”, and “profit” comment. Also realize the statistic sited by the poster show a lower abortion rate with in this organization verses the general public. This is not an opinion of mine, it is what is written in the thread links.
That is your opinion of my post, if you read the actual post no such statement is made. I am amazed at the disparity between the statistics and the comments, or in other words the comments seem to be justified by a poor base
no, my logic is fundamentally and clearly displayed, your comments clearly are miles outside that fundamental frame
the questions will not be considered in present form, there is not a reasonable link between the subjects.
the questions contribute to an underlying ill intent, I will not knowingly participate in such
Brendan you may have the best intentions, however the manifesting is not acceptable. You may want to consider some statistical implications of the OP’s post the link says the organization serves 3 million a year (unduplicated) now I’ll assume that is “unduplicated within year" not between years. 3 million is roughly equal to the number born per year, so---------. You know a lot of people who are in those numbers, ironically I am not one of them!
B
Brendan
Guest
And where is Truth lacking in my posts.
Were the comments unfactual. Are the average weekly number of deaths attributable to acts by Planned Parenthood less than the average weekly number of combat fatalites incured by Allied Forces after D-Day.
If the data was factual, where is the un-truth.
But you also claim that truth cannot be entrapped. Does ‘ill intent’ somehow allow truth to be entrapped?
C
catholicbuckeye
Guest
“Imply nor infer”? You cannot do both at the same time. The speaker implies and the listener infers. In general using words without knowing their meaning or use is called ignorance.
Roofer, I eagerly await your book “Auschwitz: Health Spa for the Masses”
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/infer
in•fer (n-fûr) KEY
VERB:
in•ferred , in•fer•ring , in•fers
VERB:
tr.
1)To conclude from evidence or premises.
2)To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3)**To lead **to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy).
4) **To hint; imply. **
VERB:
intr.
To draw inferences
Would like to pick another word which describes the transition in your post?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
My words were" which means it is in and of its self not completely truthful." meaning the question is not actually a sincere question. It is an attempt to transition off the correct subject, substitute a different subject, argue a point and transition back under the assumption no meaning is lost.
It does not matter to me whether the side subjects as listed are correctly stated or not. The sincerity of the question is a self evident statement which I do not ask you to accept.
in the sincerity
I am not to concern about being entrapped, I do not wish to participate it either the entrapment game or the ill intent.
B
Brendan
Guest
You mentioned an assumption of both insincerity and ‘ill intent’
Could you provide, via cut and paste, what was said that constitutes either insincerity or ill intent?
Could you provide, via cut and paste, what was said that constitutes either insincerity or ill intent?
E
estesbob
Guest
Same discussion going in with Roofer in another thread. For the life of me I dont know why he is upset with people quoting from the PP reports. its almost as if he wants to change the subject away from what a vile, evil organization PP is.The simple fact of the matter is they make money off killing children No amount of parseing the statistics can undo that,
R
Rosalinda
Guest
TexasRoofer has expressed:[sign]I am amazed at the disparity between the statistics and the comments, or in other words the comments seem to be justified by a poor base. [/sign]
One of the comments he took issue with was that of the original poster PLAL who remarked about the photographs in PP annual report: “complete with smiling babies and children it missed killing.”
For the sake of clarity, let us see if indeed PLAL has committed “an offense against justice and truth” concerning the reputation of Planned Parenthood. After all, this is the contention which one can reasonably deduce from postings #22 and #29 of Texas Roofer. I looked up the report and indeed found the photos both on the cover and inside the report. So there was no “deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error” on PLAL’s part. Perhaps Texasroofer was slighted with the “missed killing” claim. Granted, it may have been clumsy wording but it is a far stretch to conclude such sarcasm entails a “duty of reparation” to PP for damage to their reputation. (CCC 2487 originally quoted by TR)
Active and informed pro-lifers are well aware approximately 47,841,695 American children are missing since the killing fields of abortion opened on Jan.22,1973. By their own admission, PP has contributed substantially to this death toll both directly and indirectly. Therefore the comment was indeed fair.
Furthermore, PP intentionally selected photographs of black Americans to prominently feature in their annual report. For this reason, it is worth contrasting this slick public relations ploy with the following article by Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/index.htm
One of the comments he took issue with was that of the original poster PLAL who remarked about the photographs in PP annual report: “complete with smiling babies and children it missed killing.”
For the sake of clarity, let us see if indeed PLAL has committed “an offense against justice and truth” concerning the reputation of Planned Parenthood. After all, this is the contention which one can reasonably deduce from postings #22 and #29 of Texas Roofer. I looked up the report and indeed found the photos both on the cover and inside the report. So there was no “deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error” on PLAL’s part. Perhaps Texasroofer was slighted with the “missed killing” claim. Granted, it may have been clumsy wording but it is a far stretch to conclude such sarcasm entails a “duty of reparation” to PP for damage to their reputation. (CCC 2487 originally quoted by TR)
Active and informed pro-lifers are well aware approximately 47,841,695 American children are missing since the killing fields of abortion opened on Jan.22,1973. By their own admission, PP has contributed substantially to this death toll both directly and indirectly. Therefore the comment was indeed fair.
Furthermore, PP intentionally selected photographs of black Americans to prominently feature in their annual report. For this reason, it is worth contrasting this slick public relations ploy with the following article by Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Given the blatant hypocrisy of PP, euphemisms such as “reproductive rights” and doing more than any other organization in U.S. to “protect women’s health” such a visceral reaction from pro-lifers is indeed understandable. Unmasking works of darkness is the proper work of Christians. No lies are needed. Simply cast the light of truth.
priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/index.htm
- Status