Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Sawbonz 27546]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

serious question: have you ever left the US?

Yes why?

[Neonmoon 38129]

America doesn’t actually have a capitalistic economy, it’s more of a mixed economy. We have parts Capitalism and parts Socialism. 

[Sawbonz 27546]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

America doesn’t actually have a capitalistic economy, it’s more of a mixed economy. We have parts Capitalism and parts Socialism. 

Yes as do all successful countries. 

[capnamerca 571]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

We have parts Capitalism and parts Socialism. 

Because we broke up monopolies, let the workers unionize, and firewalled the investment banks away from the regular banks (and a bunch of other shit to stimulate growth and manufacturing) after WW1 and WW2. All of which have been repealed, so we're moving quite aggressively back towards the "capitalism" side of that equation.

[TwiceHorn 31449]

4 hours ago, capnamerca said:

You know why we have child labor laws? You know why we have 40-hour/5-day work weeks? Social security? Retirement accounts with favorable tax options? State colleges?  Capitalism doesn't care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, the dying. The government had to step in so that our economy didn't treat actual, living human beings like fodder. Maybe we don't call it capitalism - it's probably more accurately called "human nature." A person or a group of people are perfectly fine and nice. PEOPLE are assholes, and power congregates as does wealth. There MUST be a social construct with governing power to protect rights.

This isn't up for debate. Look at human rights in any theocracy or dictatorship. They don't exist for any outside of the halls of money and power. Fuck, they barely exist HERE and we're the best the human race has ever invented in trying to prevent that sort of nonsense.

FOH with your "enforced altruism" label. I willingly choose for my tax dollars to go to the less fortunate, and I want those tax dollars aggregated and then applied where they can do the most good. I ALSO give locally in my community and to chosen causes, but I can't impact how a low-income neighborhood gets access to fresh running water or sewage service, or how electricity is routed, or prevent housing permits from being redlined, without a LARGE aggregation of power and money working towards these goals, driven by my elected officials.

That last sentence, btw, is NOT me saying it's perfect. It's simply pointing out that "tithe 10% to your church" doesn't do SHIT for underserved communities in this country. NOr, to keep this on topic, does it help prevent abortion.

You just made the case that no poltico-economic system has a monopoly on altruism or charity, or the lack thereof.

Especially in the part where you said it's called "human nature."

I made my comments in the context of other comments about charities, and non-profits, which are as necessary as government in most cases.

And you have gone far beyond altruism into other things.

Edited December 30, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[capnamerca 571]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

capitalism is why our concept of poverty puts our poor in the top decile of the world in terms of income and resources 

Comparing our poor to those in China, India and Brazil, for example, is not an apples-to-apples comparison, because no other demographic compares to those countries either, nor do the economies or governmental systems compare. Comparing the US to other 'developed' nations paints a far shittier picture - https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/.

 

I'll give you that our poor 'make more money' than "most of the worlds poor" ... but what a shitty, low bar you set for what is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth.

Edited December 30, 2021 by capnamerca

[capnamerca 571]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You just made the case that no poltico-economic system has a monopoly on altruism or charity, or the lack thereof.

I'm not certain the point you're trying to make here (no sarcasm ... I just don't follow).

[Sawbonz 27546]

10 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

Comparing our poor to those in China, India and Brazil, for example, is not an apples-to-apples comparison, because no other demographic compares to those countries either, nor do the economies or governmental systems compare. Comparing the US to other 'developed' nations paints a far shittier picture - https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/.

 

I'll give you that our poor 'make more money' than "most of the worlds poor" ... but what a shitty, low bar you set for what is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth.

You realize all those countries you say are better than ours are capitalist based economies right? 
 

eta that link states that by their metrics Mexico’s poor are better off than ours. You have got to be kidding

Edited December 30, 2021 by Sawbonz

[capnamerca 571]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You realize all those countries you say are better than ours are capitalist based economies right? 

With far more socialist leanings and "forced altruism." Which is the original point, that if you want to actually protect your people, and prevent abortion, you need to invest in social programs, education programs, welfare programs, housing programs, etc ... all things which the "Party of No Abortion" fairly steadfastly refuses to do. 

I'm not knocking capitalism - it's the best economic model the world has ever found. I'm saying that we're not doing enough to controls its more base urges.

Edited December 30, 2021 by capnamerca

[TwiceHorn 31449]

1 minute ago, capnamerca said:

I'm not certain the point you're trying to make here (no sarcasm ... I just don't follow).

The point was raised in the context of charities, more broadly stated, altruism.  That is a personal, or collective attribute of a society.

While capitalism, unregulated, may lend itself to exploitation, and, in that sense is not altruistic, that is not evidence of the altruism of a society, per se.  Whether other people take care of the exploited is evidence of their altruism.

People can abandon altruism "because the government takes care of that."  Or for other reasons.  But I don't think that the politico-economic system has a great deal of effect on personal or collective altruism, outside the context of government.  Other things do, like the aforementioned sense of community.

I'm not saying charities or personal altruism should supplant the government, or the other way around.  They're both necessary.

[capnamerca 571]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The point was raised in the context of charities, more broadly stated, altruism.  That is a personal, or collective attribute of a society.

While capitalism, unregulated, may lend itself to exploitation, and, in that sense is not altruistic, that is not evidence of the altruism of a society, per se.  Whether other people take care of the exploited is evidence of their altruism.

People can abandon altruism "because the government takes care of that."  Or for other reasons.  But I don't think that the politico-economic system has a great deal of effect on personal or collective altruism, outside the context of government.  Other things do, like the aforementioned sense of community.

I'm not saying charities or personal altruism should supplant the government, or the other way around.  They're both necessary.

Ok, I can get behind much of this. Fully agree that they're both necessary, but we likely disagree on the relative weights thereof. 

The original point where I jumped into this conversation was around how to *actually* reduce the rates of abortion in this country, which revolve around government-driven programs. There's an assumption baked in there that I'm making, too, that a local charity can't step in a provide said programs in lieu of a government program. I am 100% making that assertion - otherwise, it would have already happened. I also assert that it hasn't happened at least partly because our socio-economic construct (capitalism), left unchecked, has no incentive to provide these programs. That's where the government needs to step in an provide a check and a "forced" amount of investment in those programs.

I appreciate you clarifying the points.

[elfenix 34230]

capitalism does not care if you die. 

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

capitalism does not care if you die. 

It's not an industry. 

[Willfully Horn 8006]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't actually believe that to be true.

It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.

"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actuallycide  altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced ca by altruism.

If society can decide to develop the means to destroy our planet, we can also decide to develop the means to feed every soul on Earth.  And, like funding destruction, require its citizens to pay for it.

[capnamerca 571]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

It's not an industry. 

Sigh. you guys are working real fucking hard to separate "the government" from "the driving economic force in the US" when we all know they're inextricably intertwined.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Hail Satan!

Quote

 

The Satanic Temple is fighting for abortion rights in Texas
The Satanic Temple is arguing that the same US laws protecting Christian beliefs should equally apply to those who defend the right to abortion.

By Charlotte Kilpatrick

In September last year the state of Texas decided to take a step back in time to its Wild West roots with the enactment of a six-week “heartbeat” abortion ban. What makes the new law a stroke of creative legal genius is not just that it sets the cut-off for abortion at a time when most women don’t even know they’re pregnant, but also that it replaces the sheriff with brigades of abortion bounty hunters.

By relying on private vigilantes to enforce the law, the Lone Star State avoids the risk of federal judicial review by placing abortion in civil, rather than criminal court. According to Texas law SB 8, private citizens can sue anybody they suspect who “aids or abets” an abortion. This could include anyone from the unwitting Uber driver who takes a woman to the clinic, to the parents of a teenage girl who pay for the procedure, to the doctor who prescribes pills approved by the Food and Drug Administration for a medical abortion. And the person need not reside in the state of Texas to run afoul of the law. An out-of-state friend who kindly agrees to babysit while the mother drives 300 miles to her nearest provider can also become the target of an abortion hunter.

For each lawsuit won, the bounty hunter earns $10,000 plus legal costs. If they lose the case, they pay nothing.

The risk of a lawsuit from a zealous anti-choice cowboy isn’t the only thing preventing women from accessing their constitutional right to an abortion. Texas law requires women to make two visits to an abortion provider. This wouldn’t be a problem if clinics were as ubiquitous as megachurches, but unfortunately, in a state that boasts it is bigger than France, there are only 19 clinics for 29 million people. There are 207 megachurches.

[See also: The Texas abortion ban is a threat to women everywhere]

The state also requires women to undergo a medically unnecessary sonogram and receive state-mandated information about unsubstantiated medical risks, embryonic development and adoption. Once the information pamphlets have been given and the sonogram performed, the woman must wait 24 hours before receiving the abortion. The law says the day-long wait can be waived and reduced to two hours only if the woman lives at least 100 miles from the nearest clinic.

The Texas laws are widely viewed as the most restrictive in the nation and have inspired copycats in other states. On 10 December the Supreme Court declined to strike down the six-week ban on abortions but said it would allow abortion providers to challenge the law.

And thus enters the Devil’s advocate. Literally.

The Satanic Temple (TST) is one of many institutions fighting for abortion rights in the state of Texas. Those curious to learn more about the sect would be interested to know that a belief in Satan is an optional requirement for membership. As is belief in any deity, for that matter.

The US government does not hold that a belief in God or any supernatural being is necessary for an organisation to pass for a religion. For a working definition of religion, scholars can bypass the theologians and look no further than the IRS website for a list of what qualifies as a religious exemption to taxation. TST fulfils the requisite requirements, including something akin to Sunday school for the religious instruction of the young.

The first of seven Satanic Temple tenets says that individuals should “strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason”. Other tenets include a belief that the body is “subject to one’s own will alone”, a respect for the freedom of others, and that “one should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs”.

Because TST holds bodily autonomy and a belief in science as parts of its central creed, the organisation vehemently believes in the right to abortion. Not only do adherents believe in abortion, but TST has gone so far as to create an abortion ritual to protect the right to end a pregnancy. In a lawsuit filed in February 2021, lawyers for TST argued that Texas’s law requiring a medically unnecessary sonogram and a 24-hour waiting period violates the third and fifth tenet of its creed.

The US Constitution does not guarantee an explicit right to an abortion. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that previous rulings had already recognised a constitutional right to privacy, and that this right included a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy.

[See also: A dark day for abortion in America]

According to Matthew Kezhaya, lawyer for TST, what makes the Texas lawsuit different from all other abortion rights cases is that the Satanists are trying to move the abortion debate away from the nebulous area of privacy rights and into the textual confines of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of expression and belief.

“The reason this is important is because right now there are six out of nine judges on the Supreme Court who don’t like abortion, but they really like free exercise of religion and free speech,” said Kezhaya.

“What we are saying is if the two-hour waiting period kept somebody from attending mass and drinking the wine in a sacrament, it would prevent people from practising their religion. That law wouldn’t stand a chance with this [Supreme] Court. We are arguing that for the Satanic Temple, abortion is a religious right. We just want equal treatment.”

As Fox News’s outrage over the alleged hate crime of a burned Christmas tree demonstrates, there are few things right-wingers love fighting more than a “war on Christianity” and Christian values. Fortunately for them, their crusade is not limited to defending Christmas but is also enshrined in national laws.

In a 1990 decision, the Supreme Court held that a native American man could be denied unemployment benefits after being fired for violating a state drug ban to use peyote, even though its use was part of his religious beliefs. Three years later, a coalition of left and right-wing religiously minded politicians came together to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 

The federal law prohibits the government from taking any action that burdens an individual’s exercise of religion unless the action serves a compelling interest of the state. If the law is found to burden an individual’s right to religion, the state must then establish that the law “is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest”.

This law has been used to the great advantage of Christian fundamentalists. In 2012, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a mandate that all private insurers must provide contraception free of charge to employees. Owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian craft store, objected to the requirement because they said they believed IUDs (such as the coil, which blocks a fertilised egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus) induced abortions. In a split five-to-four decision, the more conservative judges of the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell vs Hobby Lobby that for-profit organisations have a constitutional right to religious freedom to deny female employees birth control.

By filing lawsuits against restrictive abortion measures, the Satanists are arguing that the same laws that protect Christians from supplying anti-Jesus morning after pills should equally apply to those who believe in a sacred right to bodily autonomy.

So far, no judge has answered the question of whether Satanists deserve the same right to religious freedom as Christians. In 2015, TST and one of its female members sued the state of Missouri because they said a law requiring abortion providers to give out pamphlets stating “life begins at conception” violated their religious beliefs. Judges for the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit said the case “lacks constitutional standing” because the female TST member was not pregnant at the time of the lawsuit, and then dismissed the case. 

Joseph Laycock, associate professor of philosophy and scholar of new religious movements at Texas State University, said that judges are eagerly trying to avoid answering the question of whether RFRA laws give Satanists the right to have abortions on demand.

“When Missouri said life begins at conception, what they really meant was unique DNA. But DNA is not a person. A cancer cell, for example, has unique DNA,” said Laycock.

Kezhaya said he intends to file a complaint against Texas’s six-week abortion ban/bounty hunter reward scheme in the coming weeks. Texas women who believe in bodily autonomy as much as the Texas senator Ted Cruz says he believes in Jesus might consider pre-emptively joining the Satanic Temple and preserving their religious right to an abortion.

 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/2022/01/why-satan-may-be-the-best-option-for-abortion-seekers-in-texas

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

2 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Hail Satan!

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/2022/01/why-satan-may-be-the-best-option-for-abortion-seekers-in-texas

well, yeah, they need more babies to eat. duh

[Guest Lobo]

1.  I actually do have "Satanists working to protect abortion rights" on my 2022 bingo card.  So I'm back in the game!  

2.  Every time I read this bill, I am just astounded at how we overlook the part where if the 'bounty hunter' loses the case, they pay nothing...not even filing fees.  Who the fuck do people think pays all those costs?  That's right, Texas taxpayers.  From the state of "Let's stop lawsuit abuse!" (which I agree with), we get this willy-nilly free for all where people can just sue anybody they think might be an Uber driver at/near a women's clinic and when they inevitably lose...they just throw up their hands and say "Welp, onto the next one."  It's the most twisted fucking scratch-off lottery gamble in the history of humanity.  This is our idea of judicial restraint?  Civil courts turning over 7-figure invoices to the state for payments on all these lost cases?  What the fuck?

[Captainant 27653]

Fucking insane that prosecutors want to punish women who lose a child rather than treat them like human fucking beings.

California AG: Don’t file murder charges in stillbirths

Just stupid to punish an addict that just lost a child. That's not helping society or going to do anything to dissuade them from repeat behavior. Just flexing power.

[TwiceHorn 31449]

On 12/29/2021 at 11:19 PM, elfenix said:

capitalism does not care if you die. 

Well, to be fair, neither does socialism.  Or communism.  Or any other politico-economic system.

[TwiceHorn 31449]

On 12/29/2021 at 11:11 PM, capnamerca said:

Ok, I can get behind much of this. Fully agree that they're both necessary, but we likely disagree on the relative weights thereof. 

The original point where I jumped into this conversation was around how to *actually* reduce the rates of abortion in this country, which revolve around government-driven programs. There's an assumption baked in there that I'm making, too, that a local charity can't step in a provide said programs in lieu of a government program. I am 100% making that assertion - otherwise, it would have already happened. I also assert that it hasn't happened at least partly because our socio-economic construct (capitalism), left unchecked, has no incentive to provide these programs. That's where the government needs to step in an provide a check and a "forced" amount of investment in those programs.

I appreciate you clarifying the points.

Well, I might submit that all kinds of social charities, to include churches, have a role in reducing abortion.  Planned Parenthood is one.  Church supported and secular adoption "homes" are another.  Any kind of charity that focuses on the medical and psychosocial health of the poor and disadvantaged plays a role, or should.

[hpslugga 4058]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be fair, neither does socialism.  Or communism.  Or any other politico-economic system.

Except for North Koreanism in that it cares if any of those Kims die.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:59 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

well, yeah, they need more babies to eat. duh

I am actually on board with the 7 tenets of the nontheistic TST but that may be for another thread.

Quote

 

I

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V

Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI

People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

 

 

[Mo Horn 8832]

New day, same result. The dissents are scathing.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Mo Horn

[David Dennison 18854]

18 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

New day, same result. The dissents are scathing.

 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/sotomayor-dissent-abortion-roe-wade.html

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/sotomayor-dissent-abortion-roe-wade.html

 

It is time for women to start leaving Texas.  I have a wedding to attend in early March.  I think I am going to fly in that morning and leave first flight out the next day.  Spend as little time or money in Texas as possible.  Fuck the Texas government and anyone enabling this bullshit to continue.

[David Dennison 18854]

Texas is the worst of nanny-state Republicanism.

[atomheartbevo 89648]

On 1/21/2022 at 10:32 AM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

It is time for women to start leaving Texas.  I have a wedding to attend in early March.  I think I am going to fly in that morning and leave first flight out the next day.  Spend as little time or money in Texas as possible.  Fuck the Texas government and anyone enabling this bullshit to continue.

On 1/21/2022 at 10:52 AM, David Dennison said:

Texas is the worst of nanny-state Republicanism.

Saw this after Huffines re-tweeted it, and this guy is not alone, he has a fan club in the lege:

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that Republicans will ban all abortion, period.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that Republicans will ban all abortion, period.

When and where they can. But they’ll still pay for their mistresses to get abortions in places where it’s still legal 

[hpslugga 4058]

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

Too bad “god’s law” says absolutely nothing about life beginning at conception.

Why is it that when it comes to these silly-assed arguments about mixing religion with politics, secularists always seem to know both sides of the argument better than the fanatics know their own?

Edited January 31, 2022 by hpslugga

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Too bad “god’s law” says absolutely nothing about life beginning at conception.

Why is it that when it comes to these silly-assed arguments about mixing religion with politics, secularists always seem to know both sides of the argument better than the fanatics know their own?

I believe they are using Jeremiah 1:5 as the basis for that.  

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

That is obviously speaking of the prophet Jeremiah.  But even if you take that broadly, that literally translates to before conception.  So for all the men who want to regulate abortion, we should also be regulating your sexual activities because any emission not resulting in a child is akin to killing a child of God.  

They honestly do not know their own scripture or how to fucking read and interpret it.  They pick and choose the parts that they want to apply. 

[Guest Lobo]

Well, as I've often said...a woman's decision to have an abortion is between her, her doctor, Dan Patrick, and a 6th century BC Jewish scribe.  

[hpslugga 4058]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I believe they are using Jeremiah 1:5 as the basis for that. 

They may as well have used Ecclesiastes 3:19, for all the good that would have done them.

But that's really the point, isn't it? That they have to twist themselves into such dishonest...errr "apologetic" pretzels that they have to do that practice of "reading between the lines without reading the lines" and perform these pitiful displays of mental gymnastics instead of just reading simple texts for what they are...like Yevamot 69b:

"And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being” 

Or Sanhedrin 80b:

"the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its body."

Then of course the really hardcore liars...errr "apologists" are gonna shoot back with "that's from the Talmud; that's not Christianity."

See, it's just a series of cans of worms that those people keep opening.

Ok, so New Testament only, right? 

Matthew 5:18-19:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So Jewish law is very much relevant, according to their own savior, so I do not consent to that condition of "New Testament only."

One of those laws is found in Numbers 5:

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband"

"Oh but they don't know she's pregnant," the apologist will mislead. Yeah, but they do know that if the suspicion is correct, this water will cause her to have a miscarriage. Abortion is, by definition, a forced miscarriage. Of course every thinking person knows this whole thing about curses and potions is pure bullshit, but that's not the point. The point is what's in that freakin' Bible they thump so loudly when women's reproductive rights are at issue.

So according to Jewish Law, which is the foundation of the aforementioned Jesus passage in Matthew:

1. From day 0-40 of gestation, the being isn't even a being. It is "mere water."
2. From day 41 until live birth, the being is still not a being. It's a "part of a mother's body," most commonly referred to as a "thigh." *
3. If at any point prior to the live birth the woman's husband suspects that she's been unfaithful (and let's be realistic, what better reason would he have to suspect that than when she's pregnant when she should not be?), God not only endorses abortion, he participates in it. And notice, this forced miscarriage is to take place whether the woman wants it or not. She is to say "amen, so be it."

*=Some of your Bibles will translate the Numbers passage as something to the effect of "the woman's thigh will rot and fall away" instead of "the womb miscarries." This is why.

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

That is obviously speaking of the prophet Jeremiah.  But even if you take that broadly, that literally translates to before conception.

Yeah, again, those are just mental back-flips that you're witnessing.

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

They honestly do not know their own scripture or how to fucking read and interpret it.  They pick and choose the parts that they want to apply. 

Some of them actually do. Some actually do know the passages I quoted. They just don't care. For them, religion isn't a life philosophy or a life discipline. It's simply a bat that they use to crack the skulls of anyone they do not like.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

13 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They may as well have used Ecclesiastes 3:19, for all the good that would have done them.

But that's really the point, isn't it? That they have to twist themselves into such dishonest...errr "apologetic" pretzels that they have to do that practice of "reading between the lines without reading the lines" and perform these pitiful displays of mental gymnastics instead of just reading simple texts for what they are...like Yevamot 69b:

"And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being” 

Or Sanhedrin 80b:

"the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its body."

Then of course the really hardcore liars...errr "apologists" are gonna shoot back with "that's from the Talmud; that's not Christianity."

See, it's just a series of cans of worms that those people keep opening.

Ok, so New Testament only, right? 

Matthew 5:18-19:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So Jewish law is very much relevant, according to their own savior, so I do not consent to that condition of "New Testament only."

One of those laws is found in Numbers 5:

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband"

"Oh but they don't know she's pregnant," the apologist will mislead. Yeah, but they do know that if the suspicion is correct, this water will cause her to have a miscarriage. Abortion is, by definition, a forced miscarriage. Of course every thinking person knows this whole thing about curses and potions is pure bullshit, but that's not the point. The point is what's in that freakin' Bible they thump so loudly when women's reproductive rights are at issue.

So according to Jewish Law, which is the foundation of the aforementioned Jesus passage in Matthew:

1. From day 0-40 of gestation, the being isn't even a being. It is "mere water."
2. From day 41 until live birth, the being is still not a being. It's a "part of a mother's body," most commonly referred to as a "thigh." *
3. If at any point prior to the live birth the woman's husband suspects that she's been unfaithful (and let's be realistic, what better reason would he have to suspect that than when she's pregnant when she should not be?), God not only endorses abortion, he participates in it. And notice, this forced miscarriage is to take place whether the woman wants it or not. She is to say "amen, so be it."

*=Some of your Bibles will translate the Numbers passage as something to the effect of "the woman's thigh will rot and fall away" instead of "the womb miscarries." This is why.

Yeah, again, those are just mental back-flips that you're witnessing.

Some of them actually do. Some actually do know the passages I quoted. They just don't care. For them, religion isn't a life philosophy or a life discipline. It's simply a bat that they use to crack the skulls of anyone they do not like.

100% agree.  

[Mole 4330]

It gets complicated and messy pretty quickly, but the early church generally held a negative view of abortion. Claiming that anti-abortion Christians lack an understanding of their faith or are coming to their conclusions ignorantly or flippantly is somewhat intellectually dishonest. The early church’s view was somewhat diverse, but fits within a view that we’d mostly call pro-life today.

This is separate from the issue of how to handle the issue in a pluralistic society, what the proper “Christian” response to the issue should be, or how Christians should balance this issue with other moral and social issues.

Some of those ancient negative views were expressed quite colorfully.

Apocalypse of Peter:

Spoiler

And near by this flame shall be a pit, great and very deep, and into it floweth from above all manner of torment, foulness, and issue. And women are swallowed up therein up to their necks and tormented with great pain. These are they that have caused their children to be born untimely, and have corrupted the work of God that created them. Over against them shall be another place where sit their children [both] alive, and they cry unto God. And flashes (lightnings) go forth from those children and pierce the eyes of them that for fornication's sake have caused their destruction.

 

[F250 28767]

22 minutes ago, Mole said:

It gets complicated and messy pretty quickly, but the early church generally held a negative view of abortion. Claiming that anti-abortion Christians lack an understanding of their faith or are coming to their conclusions ignorantly or flippantly is somewhat intellectually dishonest. The early church’s view was somewhat diverse, but fits within a view that we’d mostly call pro-life today.

This is separate from the issue of how to handle the issue in a pluralistic society, what the proper “Christian” response to the issue should be, or how Christians should balance this issue with other moral and social issues.

Some of those ancient negative views were expressed quite colorfully.

Apocalypse of Peter:

  Reveal hidden contents

And near by this flame shall be a pit, great and very deep, and into it floweth from above all manner of torment, foulness, and issue. And women are swallowed up therein up to their necks and tormented with great pain. These are they that have caused their children to be born untimely, and have corrupted the work of God that created them. Over against them shall be another place where sit their children [both] alive, and they cry unto God. And flashes (lightnings) go forth from those children and pierce the eyes of them that for fornication's sake have caused their destruction.

 

Counterpoint. The Pro-life movement is largely driven by a religious group that rejects the teachings of the Early church and would consider the Apocalypse of Peter Satanic.

 

 

[Mole 4330]

22 minutes ago, F250 said:

Counterpoint. The Pro-life movement is largely driven by a religious group that rejects the teachings of the Early church and would consider the Apocalypse of Peter Satanic.

 

 

You’re not wrong, but pulling quotes from Numbers as some “gotcha, they don’t even know their own faith” isn’t accurate either. Hypocrisy and selective reading aside, there’s a certain elevation by evangelicals of the early, pre-Constantine church and the early church was largely against abortion to some degree.

The quote was pulled for its character and surlyness, but it’s far from alone in presenting abortion as something bad or sinful.

[F250 28767]

4 minutes ago, Mole said:

You’re not wrong, but pulling quotes from Numbers as some “gotcha, they don’t even know their own faith” isn’t accurate either. Hypocrisy and selective reading aside, there’s a certain elevation by evangelicals of the early, pre-Constantine church and the early church was largely against abortion to some degree.

The quote was pulled for its character and surlyness, but it’s far from alone in presenting abortion as something bad or sinful.

I agree, quotes from the Talmud are irrelevant, it's text from a completely separate religion. I believe Islam is a lot more open to Talmud  than Christianity. Christianity does it's own thing with the Old Testament and completely ignores the Talmud.

Historically it was the Roman Catholics and Orthodox that have been opposed to abortion. The Evangelicals just recently got involved in the movement so I would say that their religious justification is suspect.

 

[hpslugga 4058]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

It gets complicated and messy pretty quickly, but the early church generally held a negative view of abortion.

When you say "the early church," to which one are you referring? You make it sound as if it was a monolithic enterprise in earlier years, and that's not at all accurate. 

[Mole 4330]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

When you say "the early church," to which one are you referring? You make it sound as if it was a monolithic enterprise in earlier years, and that's not at all accurate. 

I mean that the existing writings from the first few hundred years of church history generally hold a negative view of abortion — to the extent that it’s discussed. I brought this up as a counter to the growing trend seen here and elsewhere suggesting that opposition to abortion is somehow unsupported by Christian doctrine and ethics. It’s absurd, but we live in an era where winning arguments supersedes dealing with the issue honestly.

Whether it’s possible to make a historical or theologically informed prochoice case is a separate issue. There’s a reasonably well-supported case that many (most?) early Christians saw abortion as a practice contrary to Christian ethics.

Arguing or suggesting that a pro-life position means that modern pro-life Christians don’t understand their own faith is simultaneously arguing that many or most of the earliest Christians likewise didn’t understand their own faith and it’s practical application. This is absurd on its face. It’s the same nonsense that evangelicals pull telling other faiths what those faiths “actually teach.”
 

This is somewhat distinct from a connection between evangelical support of the pro-life movement and opposition to desegregation and all the other arguments that the position may be disingenuous.

But yes, practices and beliefs would have varied in ancient churches.

[Brisketexan 105095]

1 -- if we're discussing the pros and cons of a public policy matter, and the crucial questions depend on the interpretation of scripture and even an argument over WHICH scripture.....we're fucked.

2 -- if we're suggesting imposing a harsh, draconian public policy that literally compels someone to do certain things regarding their physical body based on what scripture says, then SURELY scriptural commands that can be followed with mere effort or payment of money should be no-brainers to impose, right?  I mean, if we're going to be a Godly and Biblical state, we pretty much have to do that.  Otherwise, we are selectively editing the Word of God, and that means we're playing the role of God, and that is textbook blasphemy, and I'm sure not going to take part in that.

So, we should enshrine in our Texas Constitution the right to food, water, and clothing, at a bare minimum.  Providing those things is a clearly stated Christian obligation (Matthew 25):

Quote

⁴⁰ And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

⁴¹ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

⁴² For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³ I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴ Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵ Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

I look forward to our Biblical Christian leaders following through on this clear commandment, good Soldiers of Christ that they are.  We should see that legislation any day now.....yep.....ANNNNNNNY day now.....

[Guest Lobo]

 

[Mole 4330]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 -- if we're discussing the pros and cons of a public policy matter, and the crucial questions depend on the interpretation of scripture and even an argument over WHICH scripture.....we're fucked.

2 -- if we're suggesting imposing a harsh, draconian public policy that literally compels someone to do certain things regarding their physical body based on what scripture says, then SURELY scriptural commands that can be followed with mere effort or payment of money should be no-brainers to impose, right?  I mean, if we're going to be a Godly and Biblical state, we pretty much have to do that.  Otherwise, we are selectively editing the Word of God, and that means we're playing the role of God, and that is textbook blasphemy, and I'm sure not going to take part in that.

So, we should enshrine in our Texas Constitution the right to food, water, and clothing, at a bare minimum.  Providing those things is a clearly stated Christian obligation (Matthew 25):

I look forward to our Biblical Christian leaders following through on this clear commandment, good Soldiers of Christ that they are.  We should see that legislation any day now.....yep.....ANNNNNNNY day now.....

Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

[Brisketexan 105095]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

Well, that's commie talk.  And we all know how the Bible and Jesus are totally against the godless commies, so there!

[jimmyjazz 45898]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

The Evangelicals just recently got involved in the movement so I would say that their religious justification is suspect.

The Southern Baptist Convention was historically mute on the concept of abortion, largely considering "life" as beginning at "first breath".  They literally considered abortion a Catholic issue up until ~ 1980.

The rallying point?  Segregation.  It was easier to rally support on a pro-life stance than a desegregation stance.  That's the truth, regardless of what our resident right wing trolls would have us believe.  This ain't some biblical debate, not even close.

 

[elfenix 34230]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

a completely separate religion

[F250 28767]

8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Yeah, Christianity is probably the most different out of the 3 Abrahamic religions. Not sure if the other two even consider Christianity to be monotheistic.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Of course, Christianity is a Abrahamic/Monotheistic religion.  You got the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Lord our God, the Lord Jesus Christ, Yahweh, the Holy Trinity, and Jesus' parents-Mary & Joseph.  That's one God.  Why  is that so confusing for some of you?  

[elfenix 34230]

16 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, Christianity is probably the most different out of the 3 Abrahamic religions. Not sure if the other two even consider Christianity to be monotheistic.

 

in the context of the discussion - religious thought in the first couple hundred years of christianity - you'd have been hard pressed to tell a christian from a jew.  it wasn't until constantine decided that if he was going to rule a christian empire that he needed to know what a christian was that real separation started. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by elfenix

[F250 28767]

14 minutes ago, elfenix said:

in the context of the discussion - religious thought in the first couple hundred years of christianity - you'd have been hard pressed to tell a christian from a jew.  it wasn't until constantine decided that if he was going to rule a christian empire that he needed to know what a christian was that real separation started. 

Well, there was the divinity of Christ which would be a major "no go" for Jews and the lack of adherence to Levitical laws by Christians. The similarity existed while Christianity was a sect of Judaism but that divergence was pretty much done almost two hundred years before Constantine's involvement. Even the debate over various mystic Christian sects like the gnostics were settled before Constantine's involvement. The council of Nicaea was sorting out the nature of Christ's divinity not differentiating Christianity from Judaism.