Charming But Irrational
This is not off-topic. It is a direct analogy of your narrow interpretation of an organization's agenda to illustrate the logical error of your argument.
And you are still missing the point. Does an agenda that constitutes a small minority of the institution's agenda automatically apply to the entire organization? Thus, does Catholicism support pedophilia, and does offering it tax breaks makes the government support the institution that supports pedophilia?
Because you are arguing that because less than 3% of PP is abortion (the rest, if you are wondering, deal with easily available sexual healthcare), all of government funding given to PP supports abortion, even if it is a tiny part of the organization's overall agenda.
edited 9th Sep '11 4:04:29 PM by Korochun
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
I changed accounts.
Except pedophilia isn't a part of the Catholic agenda. Covering it up is wrong, and they can be punished for that, as well as the child molesters. But it isn't something endemic to the religion itself. It's a false equivalency.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Charming But Irrational
Actually, a legal argument could easily be made, using the Bible as a primary source, to argue exactly the opposite. Nor can it be argued that these were individual decisions and isolated cases: these people used the resources of the church, their position and authority as a spiritual adviser to perpetrate these acts. This is, quite literally, a part of their agenda, making it a church's agenda, too.
Understand, I am not putting Catholicism on trial. I'm just saying that an organization cannot be defined by minor agendas. For example, PP is primarily a sexual health organization that focuses on prophylactics, birth control, sexual education. You know, the things you stand so much for in this thread*. If you axe the funding for it because less than 3% of its agenda is providing abortions after a consultation then, well, the person that would be least happy with this is actually you.
-*Assuming you actually believe that, of course.
edited 9th Sep '11 4:12:23 PM by Korochun
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
I changed accounts.
Because the Church uses every part of the Bible as a literal reference anymore. And no, because insofar as I know official Church byline is that the pedophiles are wrong, so... although if you can prove otherwise we'll talk about this.
I'm not happy about it. But I'm less happy with the status quo. Federal money is going to an organization which performs abortions, which is illegal. So they have a choice between splitting off the abortion bit, or losing the funding. It's in their hands, now. They knew the law and, as far as I can tell, chose to ignore it in hopes nobody would notice. Now we have, and it's choosing time.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Charming But Irrational
Is that a joke? Because yes, you can find almost any part of the Bible being used literally by someone from one Church or another.
You are still ignoring the actual question too. Bravo, good sir. I see there isn't much point in continuing this.
When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
I changed accounts.
It was a joke. Not potholing to Sarcasm Mode is annoying, isn't it? 
Individual action =/= organizational byline. Planned Parenthood has abortion as a part of its basic mission. Catholicism does not, conversely, have pedophilia as a part of its basic mission. False equivalency is false.
I am now known as Flyboy.
I'd like to know the definition of "tax break." Either way, that's also off-topic, so maybe I actually don't want to know...
Edit: religion has to be tolerated. Illegal acts do not. Even if I wanted to say yes (I don't), the Constitution overrules me.
edited 9th Sep '11 3:58:28 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.