Woo HOO!! Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!!!!

[anonemouse 1]

Funny, the way you come across is that you want to be able to say, "I gave more than you, so I'm a better person!" It's not the amount that counts. It's the act of giving. You want recognition for the amount of time and money that you give. You want to be praised for how generous you are. A truly generous person wouldn't care about how much other people give. And, well heck, if you were a truly charitable person that cared more about others than yourself, you'd give way all of "your nearly 200k per year" except just enough for you to live on.

Absolutely not. If you had given the time to read my posts, only one of the programs that I volunteer at is conservative in politics. The rest of them are actually quite favored by liberals. Beach cleanup and sea turtle rescue and protection. Home building for struggling families who just need a leg up in the world (very similar to habitat for humanity, started by one of the most favored liberal presidents of our generation), drug rehab programs and a clinic for users trying to clean up, the American Cancer Society, the local ronald mcdonald house. Are these all too conservative for you? And NONE of these are charities that our church gives to, and only one of them has another member of our church working with them as well.

Actually, I don't think you ever actually mentioned where you were volunteering, except for the pregnancy couseling centers. If you did, I apologize. If you didn't, well, am I supposed to be a mind-reader?

And by the way, how do you know the politics of every single person you've ever volunteered with or who's sent money? Unless you've met every single one of them and were close enough to discuss politics (which most people don't do with anyone they don't know very well), you have no idea what they're politics are. So really, you're just blowing smoke up our asses about "knowing that conservative give more than liberals".

I am not sure what part of my life you see to think I am a money grubbing snob, but I am sorry you developed that view of me. You don't even know me! But I guess you have your reasons.

I realize this was directed towards BJean, but I wanted to put my two cents in, anyway. I think anyone who has to brag about the amount of money they make and the amount they give away is a snob.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Oh, and our church, when they give to community families that need it, do so without them doing anything in return. Most churches are like this, but there are a select few out there that have given the rest of the group a bad name.

[anonemouse 1]

Oh, and our church, when they give to community families that need it, do so without them doing anything in return. Most churches are like this, but there are a select few out there that have given the rest of the group a bad name.

My aunt and uncle's church would be an example of one that puts conditions on their "charity". They expect people to sacrifce their very personal religious beliefs in order to have a safe place to stay and a meal. It's disgusting, IMO. Charity isn't charity if there are strings attached.

[Carlene 12]

[/size]But I have done a lot of "effort" donation - where I'm giving my time or my labor instead of my money. Volunteering in Soup kitchens, hospitals (used to do this every summer in high school, and still do it when I can and they need someone), the animal shelter, Habitat for Humanity, etc. I own a business that builds websites and last year we donated our services to build sites for 11 charities. If you convert that to dollars, it's probably significant, but it's still not us handing out money.

It is my belief, and everyone is entitled to his/her own, that we are called to give of our time, our talent, and our treasure. Not one or the other....not two out of three, but ALL of them.

The fact is, if all "charity" was from private sources (no government assistance of any kind), there would be little earmarked for treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction, single and/or unwed mothers, high school dropouts, etc. Animals would get more money than victims of STDs. Uninsured children would have little access to eyeglasses, dental care, or medical treatment. Because people are way too quick to judge. They don't want "their" money spent on cigarette-smoking, unemployed, do-nothing, hangin'-out-on-the-corner, lazy, good-for-nothing, trailer trash.

So the government, in its infinite wisdom, takes a bit from everyone and puts it in a big pot called "welfare". And they dole it out. Very reluctantly. After the people it's supposed to help jump through lots of hoops. And show a proper degree of humility....and appreciation.

What a sad, sad bunch we are.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Funny, the way you come across is that you want to be able to say, "I gave more than you, so I'm a better person!" It's not the amount that counts. It's the act of giving. You want recognition for the amount of time and money that you give. You want to be praised for how generous you are. A truly generous person wouldn't care about how much other people give. And, well heck, if you were a truly charitable person that cared more about others than yourself, you'd give way all of "your nearly 200k per year" except just enough for you to live on.

Actually, I don't think you ever actually mentioned where you were volunteering, except for the pregnancy couseling centers. If you did, I apologize. If you didn't, well, am I supposed to be a mind-reader?

And by the way, how do you know the politics of every single person you've ever volunteered with or who's sent money? Unless you've met every single one of them and were close enough to discuss politics (which most people don't do with anyone they don't know very well), you have no idea what they're politics are. So really, you're just blowing smoke up our asses about "knowing that conservative give more than liberals".

I realize this was directed towards BJean, but I wanted to put my two cents in, anyway. I think anyone who has to brag about the amount of money they make and the amount they give away is a snob.

I did state what sort of places I support and have volunteered at. There have been a lot of posts though, so missing one here and there is normal. I am sure I have done it a number of times.

As for the people I work with, people talk about politics all the time. Look at the board here. it is VERY normal for people to wear their political compass on their sleeve. Its actually rare to work with someone for a long while and NOT know what their political associations are.

I do not post how much I make or donated to make myself "better" than anyone. There have already been comparrisons on this thread about how much is enough. Like I have said before, I am merely qualifying the charity programs and my participation so as to not be labled as "a feel good contributor".

As for donating all of my 200k minus what I need for living expenses....that is how much I can give. You see I support my sister in laws family of 4 as well as my father and mother in law. I do not count this as part of the charitable amount, but we provide for those two households because of serious illness hit both homes. I also started 2 new businesses this year and last year, and have had to put quite a bit of my own funds towards doing so. I do not donate a set amount, I donate what I do not need. If you would like a complete accounting I am happy to provide it. Since you do not feel my 25% is enough. hehehehe

As for being a snob, well, that is certainly both of your opinions. I am not sure where name calling will get you, certainly not a seat at my table. But I am amazed that someone can even begin to form an opinion of someone else just by reading a few posts on a board. You and BJ probably do not even know me from the years I was on here before. Alexandra and Wheets know me. I think they can safely say i was always a generous and helpful person. No snobs here.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

My aunt and uncle's church would be an example of one that puts conditions on their "charity". They expect people to sacrifce their very personal religious beliefs in order to have a safe place to stay and a meal. It's disgusting, IMO. Charity isn't charity if there are strings attached.

this is one thing that you and I can COMPLETELY agree on. :clap2:

[anonemouse 1]

An interesting article that goes back to one of the previous discussions:

AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- When Emilio Gonzales lies in his mother's arms, sometimes he'll make a facial expression that his mother says is a smile.

But the nurse who's standing right next to her thinks he's grimacing in pain.

Which one it is -- an expression of happiness or of suffering -- is a crucial point in an ethical debate that has pitted the mother of a dying child against a children's hospital, and medical ethicists against each other.

Emilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.

The hospital contends that keeping Emilio alive on a ventilator is painful for the toddler and useless against his illness -- Leigh's disease, a rare degenerative disorder that has no cure.

Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

The two sides have been in and out of courts, with the next hearing scheduled for May 8.

The case, and the Texas law, have divided medical ethicists. Art Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, supports the Texas law giving the hospital the right to make life or death decisions even if the family disagrees. "There are occasions when family members just don't get it right," he said. "No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation."

But Dr. Lainie Ross, a pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, says she thinks Emilio's mother, not the doctors, should be able to decide whether Emilio's life is worth living. "Who am I to judge what's a good quality of life?" she said. "If this were my kid, I'd have pulled the ventilator months ago, but this isn't my kid."

The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate" -- even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile.

Dr. Ross says that under the law, some dozen times hospitals have pulled the plug against the family's wishes. She says more often than not, the law is used against poor families. "The law is going to be used more commonly against poor, vulnerable populations. If this family could pay for a nurse to take care of the boy at home, we wouldn't be having this conversation," she said.

Emilio is on Medicaid, which usually doesn't pay for all hospital charges. The hospital's spokesman said that he doesn't know how much it's costing the hospital to keep Emilio alive, but that cost was not a consideration in the hospital's decision.

"[Our medical treatments] are inflicting suffering," said Michael Regier, senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, of which Austin Children's is a member. "We are inflicting harm on this child. And it's harm that is without a corresponding medical benefit."

"It's one thing to harm a child and know this is something I can cure," he added. "But that's not the case here." Regier says Emilio is unaware of his surroundings, and grimaces in pain. He said the ventilator tube down his throat is painful, as is a therapy in which hospital staff beat on his chest to loosen thick secretions.

But Gonzales says her son is on heavy doses of morphine and not in pain. She said her son does react to her. "I put my finger in his hand, and I'm talking to him, and he'll squeeze it," she says. "Then he'll open his eyes and look at me."

Gonzales said she'll continue to fight for treatment for her son. "I love my kid so much, I have to fight for him," she said. "That's your job -- you fight for your son or your daughter. You don't let nobody push you around or make decisions for you."

Elizabeth Cohen is a CNN Medical News correspondent. Senior producer Jennifer Pifer contributed to this report.

I find the statement that I highlighted to be really ironic. Doesn't she realize that she's defying her God's will by keeping the kid on a respirator? He'd already be dead right now, if it had been left up to "God's intentions".

[anonemouse 1]

this is one thing that you and I can COMPLETELY agree on.

Definitely. I tend to keep my mouth shut around them, because arguing about it is more stress than it's worth. It wouldn't change the fact that their actions are disgusting to me, and I wouldn't be able to convince them that they're wrong. They really are the type of people you just smile and nod at and then go on your way.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

But you cannot punish a group for the actions of one. and you certainly cannot expect the same of the group because of your close ties and observation of underhanded actions of one church. Its prejudice.

[anonemouse 1]

But you cannot punish a group for the actions of one. and you certainly cannot expect the same of the group because of your close ties and observation of underhanded actions of one church. Its prejudice.

That's true, and I try not to. I just happen to see more strings attached to charity than not. Some people and churches give authentically. Many that I've seen don't, though. Again, not saying all churches have strings attached to their giving, but I've run into quite a few. I've just seen so much underhandedness that I'm automatically suspicious of any group that advertises how much they give to charity. To me, charity is personal, and it should remain that way. IMO, you don't talk about politics, sex, or charity in public. It's just one of the no-nos. You don't talk about it, you just do it.

[Carlene 12]

I'm going back to the large penis thread. Socially irresponsible of me, I know....but a girl's entitled to a little fun once in a while - especially when all she can eat is MUSH!

[Morsaille 4]

That's true, and I try not to. I just happen to see more strings attached to charity than not. Some people and churches give authentically. Many that I've seen don't, though. Again, not saying all churches have strings attached to their giving, but I've run into quite a few. I've just seen so much underhandedness that I'm automatically suspicious of any group that advertises how much they give to charity. To me, charity is personal, and it should remain that way. IMO, you don't talk about politics, sex, or charity in public. It's just one of the no-nos. You don't talk about it, you just do it.

If I couldn't talk about sex and politics, I'm pretty sure I'd have almost nothing to say.

Even though my politics are more in line with Laurend, Green, and BJean; I am thrilled to see you back here Funny! I guess I just love me a little conflict from time to time. :heh:

[BJean 16]

funnyd: Hate?? You criticize me for saying that you're actions cause you to seem like a snob? I don't hate you. You're quite right, I do not know you. But you're also right when you say that I have read the posts you've made here. That's all I am going on. But why would you post differently than you really feel, differently than who you are?

My personal experience with philanthrophy has caused me to feel the way I do. I don't want to start listing all of the organizations and people who I have been affiliated with for the past 20 years because if I did, I would be just like you. But I can assure you that MOST (but certainly not ALL) of the people with whom I've worked to benefit charitable causes have been exactly like you sound. It's like putting notches on their crystal studded belts. It may get the job done for the charity (thank God), but it's distasteful to see them gloat over their latest "project."

I apologize if I have come down too hard on you. Let me assure you that I do absolutely not hate you. However after reading post after post of yours, I believe I have a good idea of what you're about. Anyone who has to list ad nauseum all the wonderful things that they do, to the extent you post percentages and all that, is reveling in the glory of their own existence.

As far as I'm concerned if someone is a truly charitable and caring person, their giving would be done anomyously.

[Morsaille 4]

...or maybe she is left-brained...

[BJean 16]

Carlene: I loved your post 2579.

I'm headed out too. I have no business getting this emotionally involved in a debate with people who are so opposite from me philosophically. I'm way too old for this stuff.