Comments posted organically
Editorial: Attack on Nancy Pelosi should be San Francisco archbishop’s final act here

By HatetheSwamp
May 23, 2022 6:38 am
Category: Religion

(4.0 from 2 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

Cordileone has now upped the ante by grandstanding on the issue and picking a fight with the most powerful woman – and second-most powerful Catholic — in American politics. His attack on Pelosi comes as conservative justices on the Supreme Court are poised to play a key role in reversing legal precedent to overturn abortion rights. This decision promises to further polarize American politics and strip away a key health right crucial to preserving the health and safety of tens of millions of women. Many women will die if the court goes through with this decision.

So, gang.

Archbishop Cordileone took this courageous...prophetic...action on Friday.

On Saturday, I checked out Twitter and noted, among what was trending, "Tax the Churches," something that I favor so I clicked on it.

Come to find out, this was a cranky response of pi$$ed off Blue MAGA Swampcultists to Archbishop Cordileone standing up for Church teaching and applying it to Nancy Pelosi and her hypocrisy on abortion.

"OH YEAH, YOU FILTHY MONGREL,UNWOKE ARCHBISHOP. OH YEAH. WELL, THEN, WE'LL JUST TAX THE CHURCHES. HOW BOUT THEM APPLES!!!!!"

Silly.

Cute.

Typical.

Par for the Blue MAGA Swampcult course.

Petty.

Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.


Cited and related links:

  1. sfexaminer.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Editorial: Attack on Nancy Pelosi should be San Francisco archbishop’s final act here":

  1. by Donna on May 23, 2022 7:28 am
    The Catholic Church is a good 'ol boys club. It should have been excommunicated from the planet when they were caught covering up rampant child molestation within its ranks.

    I didn't know that you supported taxing churches, and I guess synagogues, mosques and the like too. You go, girl!

    Conservatives love it when outspoken powerful liberal women are put in their place. They'd prefer that that place be the kitchen, but they'll take any victory I guess, right?

    OTOH, who gives a crap about Nancy?


  2. by HatetheSwamp on May 23, 2022 7:33 am

    You go, girl!

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Who cares about Nancy Pelosi? Obviously, not you. But, as you can see, the editorial staff of the San Francisco Examiner does.


  3. by islander on May 23, 2022 8:14 am

    Hate, not all Catholics agree with the Church's position on abortion. I think this is something that many people like yourself who use rule based thinking might have a hard time understanding. Polls show that between 16% and 22% of American Catholic voters agree with Church policy that abortion should be illegal in all cases, the rest use consequence based thinking.

    Rule based thinking is easier, the rule says X therefor the rule must be obeyed.

    Consequence based thinking is more complex and requires further thought as to what the consequences of following the rule would be. And in certain circumstances the consequences would be such that not following the rule would be the the choice one should make.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on May 23, 2022 8:45 am

    Thanks for the jolt of sanctimony. You're a hoot.

    As I've been saying. There are different ways "denominations" have of organizing themselves.

    As I noted on the other thread, Southern Baptists are, by principle, fiercely democratic.

    Literally...intentionally...power, in theory and, apparently in practice, among Baptists is with the people, still. So when leadership feigned to be appalled at the exposure of a sexual abuse scandal, the people blocked leadership and its attempt to investigate itself and, presumably, do a cover up.

    Roman Catholics' organization is Episcopal. That word comes from the New Testament Greek word, episcopos...the word for bishop.

    Roman Catholic leadership is top down...the highest ranking Bishop being the effin Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

    You're out of your depth here, isle. pb knows his institutionalized church. It doesn't matter, among Roman Catholics, what percentage of people favor abortion. It's all about the Bishops...as a matter of principle...and practice.

    If you want to have a voice in your church's position on abortion, try the Baptists.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm picturing isle carrying his Bible to a Baptist church in a suit and tie. Hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo!


  5. by Donna on May 23, 2022 11:02 pm
    "Come to find out, this was a cranky response of pi$$ed off Blue MAGA Swampcultists to Archbishop Cordileone standing up for Church teaching and applying it to Nancy Pelosi and her hypocrisy on abortion." - Hts

    What hypocrisy?

    I get a kick out of you Pelosi haters. I'm not a big fan of her myself, but I find it interesting how Republicans are always ragging on her but are pretty much silent about Chuck Schumer who shares all of her policy positions.

    I think it's pretty clear why. Misogyny is rampant among Republicans. The kind of churches most Republicans attend are misogynist too with their silly all-male "elders" running the church.


  6. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 4:25 am

    I think you'll have to look long and hard to find me trashing Pelosi...other than noting her support of the murder of unborn babies up to the moment of birth. She could, simply, decide that she believes in Jesus but cannot support a church that enables the oppression of women and denies them the basic right to control their own bodies. Heck! That's what isle has done!

    Other than that, in spite of my ideological differences with Pelosi, I think she's a historically effective Speaker and, of course, the first babe to hold that position.

    For effin cryin out loud, she's gotten the agenda of the Doddering Old Fool passed in the House, with a small majority to work with. That's amazing! She'll go down in history as one of the most effective Speakers of the House.


  7. by islander on May 24, 2022 9:09 am

    Hate wrote: ”You're out of your depth here, isle. pb knows his institutionalized church. It doesn't matter, among Roman Catholics, what percentage of people favor abortion. It's all about the Bishops...as a matter of principle...and practice.“



    You certainly know how to make yourself look foolish Hate LoL !!

    You do remember I hope, learning back in Psych 101 the signs of insecurity and inadequacy that someone suffering from an inferiority complex exhibits? Your insults, childish name calling and delusions of grandeur are classic.

    At any rate, did you understand “how” what I said related to the Bishop of San Francisco forbidding Pelosi from taking Communion in his diocese? 



    I know you have little understanding of Catholic teachings and doctrine which is understandable since what you learned about piety in the early German Protestant Church will be of little or no help to you in that regard. 

If, instead of replying with a post full of non-sequiturs and insults, you can explain why a bishop telling a Catholic lay person that he or she cannot receive communion in his diocese for not following Catholic teaching seems to bother you? Since, except as a way of posturing in public, which is my opinion of the bishop’s edict, it doesn’t affect you or me in any way? In fact, the poor Bishops no longer have any temporal power in this country unless a person freely grants it to them, and then it only applies to that person. Nancy Pelosi can, if she so desires, receive communion in another diocese. The Catholic Church, like all churches and clubs has its own rules, but they do not apply to and can’t compel anyone to follow them who doesn’t voluntarily want to join the club and follow the rules. They are not democracies.

    This why we have separation of church and state and why we progressives defend that principle so fiercely.


  8. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 9:29 am

    isle,

    What the ARCHbishop did don't bother me. As a follower of Jesus, it concerns me when people say they believe one thing but DO something else. Joe and Nancy claim loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church yet support the killing of unborn babies up to the end of pregnancy.

    And...I said it was radical. In fact, I described it as "prophetic."

    I UNDERSTAND the history. I understand the theology, the doctrine, almost certainly, better than you.

    What I don't know is what it means to view this as a Roman Catholic. You've got me there.

    Back in the day, I was an evangelical. You, a Catholic, couldn't know what it meant to me to deal with the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart shenanigans.

    So, you've got me there. I have no idea what it means to encounter this as an insider. You have a different perspective on this because of who you have been and are.

    Still, on an academic level, I'm sure I know this better than you.

    FYI, my perspective is not German Protestant. It's Anabaptist. (Look it up.)


  9. by islander on May 24, 2022 11:10 am

    ”I UNDERSTAND the history. I understand the theology, the doctrine, almost certainly, better than you.”

    LoL !! “If” you actually believe that, it’s one of your subjective truths but it’s not an objective truth since it doesn’t conform to reality.

    ”What the ARCHbishop did don't bother me. As a follower of Jesus, it concerns me when people say they believe one thing but DO something else. Joe and Nancy claim loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church yet support the killing of unborn babies up to the end of pregnancy.”

    This is another good example of how limited your understanding of Catholic teaching is...I explained the primacy of “Fidelity to one’s Conscience” to you which is Catholic teaching quite some time ago on the other board, but you being a rule based thinker rather than a consequence based thinker apparently didn’t quite grasp it.

    We pro-choice folks support the killing of unborn babies up till the end of pregnancy in the same way you support the destruction of families through divorce.

    Do you really think people support abortions and divorce? Do you think they should both be illegal? (The Catholic Church officially condemns both)


  10. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 11:22 am

    I think abortion should be illegal in the ninth month of pregnancy, except to protect the life of the mother.


  11. by islander on May 24, 2022 2:04 pm

    ”I think abortion should be illegal in the ninth month of pregnancy, except to protect the life of the mother.”

    If that’s true then I could say you “support abortion” right through the ninth month. That’s how you phrase it when dissing the pro-choice side. We don’t “support abortion”!

 We don‘t support abortion at “any stage” any more than you support divorce. What we support is the woman’s right to choose. If you support a woman’s right to choose abortion even in the ninth month to save her life then you are pro-choice.

    If you take away a woman’s right to make that choice “then” you are anti-choice.



    Can you or your congressman make the medical decision as to when and how likely a woman is to die if she continues her pregnancy? If not the woman’s doctor/s , who is qualified to make that determination ? Mitch McConnell? Justice Alito? And which politicians are qualified to tell the woman she cannot choose to have the abortion after discussing it with her Doctor? That’s why we say it should be between the woman and her doctor, not the politicians. If you want to take away a woman’s choice, you’d better be qualified to make the determination as to whether or not it is medically necessary.

    We pro-choicers are the ones who have always led the battle to reduce abortions through education and fighting to make contraceptives available to any woman who wants them, and this is why the rate of abortions has been going down for the last 4 decades. It’s not because we made it illegal...It’s because we are doing something that works to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

    We would all hope that a woman would not abuse her right by deciding to have a late term abortion in order to look good for her 10 year class reunion. But in real life that kind of thing simply doesn’t happen. Virtually all late term abortions are for woman who want to give birth. Late term abortions are incredibly rare and tragic for both the mother and her hoped for child.


  12. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 2:26 pm

    isle,

    I'm moved by your emotion. Clearly, it would be impossible to convince you to think differently than you do. Your view comes from your passion, not from reason nor logic.

    Also, if you support the WHPA, you support abortion up to the moment of birth.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 2:55 pm

    Church Of Satan Declares Pelosi Still Allowed To Receive Satanic Eucharist

    So...

    She has options.


    babylonbee.com


  14. by islander on May 24, 2022 3:07 pm

    ”Also, if you support the WHPA, you support abortion up to the moment of birth.”

    I knew “you” wouldn’t be able to understand what I said... but I posted it because I knew there were others who would.

    It’s really the only reason I respond to a lot (most) of your posts.


  15. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 3:25 pm

    I effin UNDERSTAND and I knew you would say this.

    What you don't UNDERSTAND is that when the Senate was preparing to vote on the WHPA, and since then, as I've monitored right wing media, the one refrain I read and hear repeatedly is that "the Democrats actually support a woman's right to abort her baby up to the moment of birth."

    There's a lot in the WHPA that is offensive to us but this is all our people can talk about.

    The point is that, clearly, you have no empathy for the many millions of people who are committed to protecting the life of the unborn.

    You demand that we UNDERSTAND you but don't care to UNDERSTAND what we think and what we feel.


  16. by islander on May 24, 2022 4:26 pm
    You're such a phony !! LoL !!!


  17. by Donna on May 24, 2022 4:56 pm
    islander - Last week I asked Hts who HE thinks should make the decision on whether or not a late term abortion should be performed and he went into his rope-a-dope routine and wouldn't answer my question. So I concluded that he thinks that the woman and her doctor should make the decision, but he was afraid to put it in writing.









  18. by HatetheSwamp on May 24, 2022 5:04 pm

    Donna. I effin absolutely did not!


  19. by islander on May 24, 2022 5:20 pm

    Donna-The poor guy must live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, always having to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

    Sometimes I feel sorry for him, but he can and usually does make even feeling sorry for him difficult.


  20. by Donna on May 24, 2022 11:15 pm
    Hts: Well you can clear the air by answering that question now. Now watch him not answer it again.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 3:54 am

    Donna,

    WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP!!!!!?

    What I said at the time is: The woman and her doctor, according to the law!!!!!


  22. by islander on May 25, 2022 4:59 am

    "What I said at the time is: The woman and her doctor, according to the law!!!!!"

    I notice that you still avoided answering Donna's question.

    It wasn't what does the present law say...It was who do "you" thinks should make the decision on whether or not a late term abortion should be performed ?


  23. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 5:21 am

    isle,

    The context is that Donna had asked what abortion regulation law I'd create if I could.

    I said that I anguish over this before I believe that life begins at conception but, as a political reality, I'd support abortion illegal after 13 weeks with the exception of abortion to protect the life of the mother.

    The she asked her question: In case of a (late term) abortion to protect the life of the mother, who should make the decision?

    My reply, when pb's law is the law was...IS...: The woman and her doctor, according to the law.

    Now.

    Do you UNDERSTAND?


  24. by islander on May 25, 2022 5:35 am

    No...I don't understand.

    I still don't know whether or not "you" think the ultimate decision should be made by the woman and her doctor.

    It sounds as though you think it should be made by politicians.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 5:44 am

    Read my, uh, keystrokes.

    The woman and her doctor, according to the law.


  26. by islander on May 25, 2022 6:05 am

    So...does that mean you think the choice should be decided according whatever the law says?

    My answer to Donna’s question would be clear and precise...The ultimate decision should be up to the woman and her doctor.

    If a law were needed I would want any law made by the politicians to make that perfectly clear.

    Can you be that clear and precise with your answer?



  27. by Donna on May 25, 2022 6:19 am
    If you agree that the choice should be made between a woman and her doctor, in accordance with the law, then if a woman finds out from her doctor at 7 months that giving birth would endanger her life, and her doctor recommends abortion and she goes through with aborting the 7-month old fetus, then you would support that decision, since you answered that the decision should be made between she and her doctor, in accordance with the law, right Hts?


  28. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 6:26 am

    The context of this discussion has attached to that hypothetical Donna created in the other thread in which pb writes the law.

    pb's Law is built on the conviction that life begins at conception and that everything that can be done to preserve unborn life must be done, but that political consensus must be achieved for protection of unborn babies. Hence, abortion would be legal through 13 weeks.

    So, pb's Law would carefully regulate what conditions must exist in order for a woman and her doctor to choose to kill the unborn child. When the conditions exist, only then could a woman and her doctor choose ending the unborn life.


  29. by islander on May 25, 2022 6:55 am

    Much better...You are making it more clear that ultimately, you don’t think late term abortions should be made by the woman and her doctor/s.

    You say: ”When the conditions exist, only then could a woman and her doctor choose ending the unborn life.”

    What you don’t say is who should make the “conditions exist” determination.

    The pro choice side says “the conditions exist” determination should be made by the woman’s doctor/s...The woman then chooses whether to continue the pregnancy under those conditions or end it.

    This is what is meant when we say the choice should be made by “the woman and her doctor”...Every life threatening pregnancy is different and dangerous, and the decisions must sometimes be made on short notice...This is why those "conditions exist" determinations shouldn’t be a political issue decided by politicians.


  30. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 7:00 am

    Donna,

    Under pb's Law, you ask an important question. "Endanger?" That's why I said to isle that "pb's Law would carefully regulate what conditions must exist in order for a woman and her doctor to choose to kill the unborn child."

    What "endanger" might mean covers a lot of ground.

    Were pb writing the law he'd write it based on the counsel of medical doctors who are vigorously convinced that life begins at conception and who are committed to protecting unborn children.

    If an abortion is genuinely required to preserve the life of the mother after 13 weeks, pb would be grieved for mother and baby, but the abortion would be legal.


  31. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 7:07 am

    isle,

    I clarified that for Donna:

    Were pb writing the law he'd write it based on the counsel of medical doctors who are vigorously convinced that life begins at conception and who are committed to protecting unborn children.

    pb's Law is fiercely prolife. You're never going to like it. But, in this thread, it's the law.


  32. by Donna on May 25, 2022 7:12 am
    Thank you. I don't understand why you didn't explain that when I asked.

    That's essentially what the law states throughout Europe, although in some countries it's more than 13 weeks.

    Even though I think a woman should be able to make the choice with no restrictions, I'd be fine with your law as a compromise, but as you know there are people on both sides of the issue who are demanding much more extreme laws.

    I would also like to see a provision in the law for allowing a woman to end the life of an unborn child that has been determined to be severely defected, even if the severe defects were discovered after 13 weeks.

    You shared a story a while back about a charming woman you and Evie met who had the mind of a 6-year old. I was thinking more along the lines of someone with a severe defect like the young lady I knew (she's probably in her late 50s now if she's still alive) who was so severely defected that the only way she could get around was in a wheelchair that had to be pushed by someone else. She had no control over any of her body movements and she had to be strapped into the wheelchair. She couldn't speak. She tried to, but it was just grunts. They performed a hysterectomy on her when she started puberty.

    Her older sister who was a good friend of mine and who was a devout Christian ( she was the choir director at a church she joined after I moved to California) said several times that if she knew that an unborn child she was carrying had a defect as severe as her sister's, she would abort. She made no specification about early stage or late stage abortion, but knowing her as well as I did, I'm sure that it wouldn't have mattered to her how far along in the pregnancy she was.

    In addition to her sister essentially having nothing what most people would consider a hapoy life, a person with such extreme birth defects also requires a lot of extra medical attention and things like a special wheekchair as well as a vehicle that can accommodate a wheekchair, all of which can place a severe financial burden on the parents.


  33. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 7:18 am

    In my defense, the demands of this hypothetical have become increasingly demanding.

    I understand your concern and I have sympathy. Still, pb's Law is what it is. 😀


  34. by islander on May 25, 2022 7:21 am

    ”based on the counsel of medical doctors who are vigorously convinced that life begins at conception”

    Who chooses those doctors and how much time are they allowed after examining the woman and her medical records to come to an agreement on “the conditions exist” ?

    Might this have to go to court if there is any disagreement between medical doctors?

    And any qualified medical professional is fully aware of the fact that a fertilized egg, embryo,fetus, etc. is alive.


  35. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 7:35 am

    Grrrrrrrrrrr, isle,

    These medical experts would be consulted in the writing of pb's Law. Then, the faithful compliance to the law would be the responsibility of the woman and her doctor.

    Since the demands of the hypothetical demand, there would be serious penalties for women and doctors who break the law.


  36. by islander on May 25, 2022 11:01 am

    So, Hate, you just want to make a "law" but can't address or even acknowledge the inherent problems involved with your law.

    Who chooses those doctors and how much time are they allowed after examining the woman and her medical records to come to an agreement on “the conditions exist”? Do they even have to examine the woman or her records?

    Can these "doctors" make a medical diagnosis without knowing the patient's medical records or examining the patient...remember each case is unique and the women who have to make this kind of decision "want" their baby...

    Might the government doctors determination on "the conditions that exist" end up in court if there is any disagreement between the medical doctors actually treating the woman and the government's panel of doctors? Or would that be forbidden by your law?

    I think your "law" is just wishful thinking because you don't seem to have thought this through...


  37. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 11:23 am

    isle,

    Take a deep breath. Read my posts.

    The woman and her own doctor(s) will make the decision.

    pb ain't no Big Brother Bureau of Abortion organizer.

    In the writing of pb's Law, pb will consult physicians in defining the conditions under which a legal abortion will be available to protect the life of the mother.

    The law will create severe punishments for women and doctors who violate the law.


  38. by islander on May 25, 2022 3:02 pm
    ”In the writing of pb's Law, pb will consult physicians in defining the conditions under which a legal abortion will be available to protect the life of the mother.”

    The problem with your law that you fail to acknowledge is the “fact” that the conditions under which a legal abortion will only be available to protect the life of the mother, which is what you want, are not cut and dry except as an abstract concept.

    Those conditions cannot be defined.

    Those conditions “cannot be specified” in advance by a panel of doctors at a politicians behest because each case is different and unique, and the only one who is capable of "actually" making that conclusion is the doctor who is there making the evaluation.

    The woman's doctor.


  39. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2022 3:20 pm

    Uh, isle...

    ...this is all 100% hypothetical.


  40. by islander on May 25, 2022 4:58 pm

    So??


  41. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 3:33 am

    You think currently current laws that allow abortion to protect the life of the mother don't do exactly the same thing?


  42. by islander on May 26, 2022 7:15 am
    ”You think currently current laws that allow abortion to protect the life of the mother don't do exactly the same thing?”

    I don’t know the details of each state’s laws.

    Preeclampsia for example, is a potentially very dangerous condition that typically occurs after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The woman’s doctor finds that in his patient’s case it could likely prove to be fatal, although that isn’t necessarily the case with “every” women.

    Can you tell me which states have laws that allow the state to contest the doctors conclusion ? If there are such laws can you tell me how they work? Who, for instance, gets to override the doctor’s conclusion?

    Is a law forbidding abortion except to save the life of a mother is actually needed ?

    I think you are assuming it is needed, as you say, to stop a healthy women and her doctor from sucking the brains out of the woman’s healthy baby moment’s before birth. However, as I said earlier, that’s not something that happens, the tiny fraction of a percent of late term abortions that are performed are for mothers who “want their baby”. No sane doctor would perform such an abortion on a healthy mother and her baby and no woman would want that done.

    When it comes to the state enacting laws, the case of a pregnant woman is unique. And without having the wisdom of Solomon, in cases and situations like this we have to tread very lightly if we think we can use the state to intervene in the conclusions and decisions that can only be made by a woman and her doctor.

    Roe V Wade was, in my opinion a reasonable compromise...but we have seen what the states did to it over time and now it appears as though it could very well be done away with completely.

    This is what you have been fighting for and it appears that you have won...so now what do we do ???


  43. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 7:32 am

    isle,

    The exception of protecting the life of the mother is common, and to my knowledge, has never been controversial. In any state where the guidelines were unreasonable, they would certainly have been litigated in court by now.

    pb's Law, it seems to pb, is, itself, a fairly reasonable compromise. A solid majority of Americans support restricting abortion after the first trimester. With very littlealteration, virtually everyone supports the exception to preserve the life of the mother.


    If pb could have his way, morally speaking, he'd ban abortion and charge every woman and every doctor with murder when an unborn baby is killed, with the exception of abortions to protect the life of the mother.

    pb knows, though, that that prohibition would lead to back alley abortions and the bootleg abortion industry it would generate.


  44. by Donna on May 26, 2022 9:17 am
    So IOW according to Hts, pb's way would be a horrible idea.

    I have to ask. Do you have multple personality disorder?


  45. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 9:20 am

    What's horrible?


  46. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 9:24 am

    Nancy Pelosi Draws Up Articles Of Impeachment Against The Pope

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha.
    babylonbee.com


  47. by Donna on May 26, 2022 10:26 am
    What's horrible? The last paragraph of what you wrote about your buddy pb's law. What? You meant that as a favorable outcome?


  48. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 10:47 am

    I don't understand. Are you in favor of back alley abortions?


  49. by Donna on May 26, 2022 1:48 pm
    pb already told you.



  50. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 2:09 pm

    The last paragraph about pb's Law:

    pb's Law, it seems to pb, is, itself, a fairly reasonable compromise. A solid majority of Americans support restricting abortion after the first trimester. With very little alteration, virtually everyone supports the exception to preserve the life of the mother.

    Again. What's horrible?



  51. by islander on May 26, 2022 4:03 pm

    Hate wrote: ”Nancy Pelosi Draws Up Articles Of Impeachment Against The Pope”

    Why ? Shouldn’t she be impeaching the bishop? LoL !!

    The Pope told Biden that he can receive communion even though his views are the same as Nancy’s. 😲

    The Pope also emphasized that bishops should focus on being pastors, not politicians. And I agree with the Pope, don't you !!!

    thehill.com


  52. by islander on May 26, 2022 4:08 pm

    “I have to ask. Do [Hate} you have multple personality disorder?”

    Donna-I’ve often wondered the same thing. I think it might be a way for him to cope with his cognitive dissonance (having to believe two contradictory things at the same time). If pb says something or believes something, in some odd way it’s sort not really Hate that is saying it or necessarily believing it.


  53. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 4:11 pm

    First, three words: The...BABYLON...BEE

    Second, one duty of a pastor could be to guide their sheep in could connecting faith and action, aint?



  54. by islander on May 26, 2022 4:12 pm

    Hate wrote: ”f pb could have his way, morally speaking, he'd ban abortion and charge every woman and every doctor with murder when an unborn baby is killed, with the exception of abortions to protect the life of the mother.”

    But you know better right? pb must think that a fertilized egg or an embryo is a person, thats why the mother should be charged with murder.

    I think we’ re all glad pb is unable to have his own way.
    Hate, do you know what pb thinks about contraceptives? That is, interfering in the “natural purpose” of sex? 😲



  55. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 4:24 pm

    Hate, do you know what pb thinks about contraceptives? That is, interfering in the “natural purpose” of sex?

    You just can't escape being Catholic, eh?


  56. by islander on May 26, 2022 4:26 pm

    "Second, one duty of a pastor could be to guide their sheep in could connecting faith and action, aint?"

    This will explain what pastoral counseling is about in Catholicism. You probably won't like it now that you quit being a pastor. Although that was pb (Pastor Bill) right?
    ecommons.luc.edu


  57. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2022 4:32 pm

    Certainly pastors do more than pastoral counseling.


  58. by Donna on May 26, 2022 5:48 pm
    islander - I like your theory about Pastor Bill creating 2 personas to cope with his cognitive dissonance. I also like your theory that pb is short for Pastor Bill.


  59. by HatetheSwamp on May 27, 2022 6:04 am

    I love how, y'nes, suddenly, are defending hypocrisy.

    Other than you, people are generally critical of religious people who are churchy and talk a good talk about spiritual stuff but then, in real life, make a mockery of their religion by what they do in real life.

    Oddly, you're praising Nancy and "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" for their hypocrisy.

    As I say, odd.


  60. by Donna on May 27, 2022 7:13 am
    You have a persecution complex. No one here is making fun of religion.


  61. by islander on May 27, 2022 7:23 am
    A hypocrite would claim to support pro choice but actually believe and support anti choice, and visa versa.

    Joe and Nancy are honest in that they disagree with the church's official teaching on abortion and they are pro choice...and they are true to their beliefs.

    Hate cannot understand how that can be...


  62. by HatetheSwamp on May 27, 2022 9:21 am

    No, Donna, you're advocating the hypocrisy that people normally condemn.


Comment on: "Editorial: Attack on Nancy Pelosi should be San Francisco archbishop’s final act here"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 10:27 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (10 comments) [210 views]


Rally at Cheyenne FBI office planned for Sunday
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 12:15 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments) [75 views]


Do you recognize this dweeb?
History by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 4:49 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [11 views]


For those who want to know part two
News by islander     August 11, 2022 1:27 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (37 comments) [301 views]


Take your best guess: will Trump agree to unseal the warrant?
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 11, 2022 3:29 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (28 comments) [328 views]


Chucky actually says what he means... scary stuff
007 James Bond by oldedude     August 12, 2022 2:57 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (21 comments) [126 views]


A prosecution in a desperate search for a crime
Crime by HatetheSwamp     August 13, 2022 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [21 views]


An FBI story with scary parallels for Donald Trump
History by Curt_Anderson     August 12, 2022 5:40 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [92 views]


Woke-ism spreads to GOP
Humor by Donna     August 12, 2022 11:21 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [28 views]


FBI search warrant shows Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice, Espionage Act violations
News by Donna     August 12, 2022 1:36 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [124 views]


Religion selectors, pages, etc.