It would be far more accurate to say the church separated itself from Christ.
Sticking my nose in albeit uninvited — here in Europe most nation states adopt a markedly different approach to elective termination of pregnancy though there is the constant pro life / pro choice argument simmering along. Over-the-counter emergency contraception, the morning after pill is available just for the asking and abortifacient drugs can be bought on line with no significant difficulty. But we are moving on even further. The Groningen Protocol allows for euthanising neonatal when that is considered the best way forward such as in the case of conjoined twins or severely malformed.
Most nation states keep religion and government at arm’s length and people here ignore the howls of anguish from bible bashers, and by and large it does result in better law.
Personally I believe that the choice to terminate or carry to full term is a thing that no one has the right much less the duty to interfere with, it is entirely the choice for the pregnant woman to make.
So that’s my first contribution made!
A fine contribution, and welcome to the Dope!
Hey, how else can one make a first post on a board? 
Welcome to the Dope! And nice handle, I’ve read the Illuminatus! trilogy a few times.
Ironically, including the Rape exemption is probably the one thing that could make the Republican myth that “lots of women falsely accuse men of raping them” into reality. While at the moment there is very little incentive for a woman to make a false accusation (particularly given the huge downsides), if this law passes, a woman may look at her options and decide that between ruining her life or that of a guy she just met at a bar, do a quick mental calculus chose the latter. This of course will have the trickle down effect of making victims or rape even less likely to be believed than they are now. So no matter which way the law is written, rape victims get hurt big time.
-
So unless you are ready to take up arms to support your position or argument, then your argument is made in bad faith? That seems very odd to say the least and is not very conducive to civilization itself.
-
Again, this example is a strawman position. One can believe that a fertilized egg is a life, but recognize that an established born human being is somehow “more” of a life or at least should be protected at law more so than a fertilized egg. It doesn’t make anyone a hypocrite nor does it make the pro-life position logically untenable.
Next, you’ll be saying that the “danger to the mother’s life” exception is also bad (except that you believe it is good) because you will appoint the belief to our side that we see no difference at all in the mother’s life and the unborn child’s life so therefore that exception, according to you, we should not have.
The argument is rather simple. Unborn child v. child. The child wins. Unborn child’s life v. mother’s life. The mother wins.
Unborn child’s life v. mother’s convenience/choice/didn’t want to have a baby, but had sex anyways? Then the balance of harms tips towards the life instead of the convenience.
Feel free to disagree with the position because it is probably the most controversial issue in modern America. But to put up these ridiculous examples is not worthy of good debate.
For Republicans, this is a feature, not a bug.
Trae Crowder I think is from Tenn , but he definitely has redneck cred.
Here’s the link, (fingers crossed!)
Not at all. You and at least one other person were claiming that pro-lifers implicitly demonstrate that they don’t sincerely believe abortion to be murder of little babies, because the majority of them don’t constantly engage in protests. I pointed out that plenty of left wingers seem to genuinely believe that drone strikes are murders of innocent civilians, even if they don’t constantly engage in protests. The same goes for people who support BLM, people who believe inaction on global warming will lead to mass deaths, etc. Point being that people can believe a policy is wrong, even evil, but still not dedicate their every waking moment to opposing it, and still have the desire to live their lives, seek everyday pleasures, etc.
This post is spot on. FWIW, it seems to be a recurring theme with iiandyiiii that he holds a low opinion of those who hold / offer opinions that they don’t support with life-disrupting actions, at least when those holding / offering the opinions are conservative.
There are hundreds of thousands of abortions each year in the US. Bad as drone attacks or law enforcement misconduct may be, there are not hundreds of thousands killed by them, or anything within a couple of orders of magnitude. Not that I’m even aware of any significant number of liberals who think all military drone attacks, or all police shootings, are “murders of innocent civilians”.
A normal, everyday life is not compatible with hundreds of thousands of babies being killed by their fellow citizens each year in one’s own country, if that’s truly how a pro-life person sees it. IMO, of course.
Which isn’t really that big a deal. Most of the pro-life people I know are very decent and honest people by every measure aside for advocacy of this restriction of women’s bodily autonomy. They really do think abortion is evil. They just don’t, in general, in my experience and conversations with them, think that abortion is the moral equivalent to the literal murder of a baby. Something bad, but not that bad, based on my experience talking to them.
It seems that my contributions are invisible, but is there any merit to my idea that because I believe that (obviously) a born human is a human life, but also believe that an unborn baby/fetus is also a human life, that I can still parse the two things and possibly believe that the unborn child is somehow, for lack of a better term, a “lesser” life than the born one?
Does everything have to be black and white? Even difficult issues like this?
Of course not. I’ve never suggested that everything has to be black and white. I’ll criticize you for your position that government force be used against women if they make certain choices about their own bodies, but not for your belief in relative different values of babies vs fetuses.
Welcome to the SDMB! fnord
That was my first thought…but when I was her age, The Church was a really big deal for me. Jesus is your friend, and yay God, and Hail Mary, and nuns leading group songs while playing acoustic guitars…I loved that stuff. To tear that away from a child – on top of the pure torture she’s already experienced – is cruel.
Catholicism lost all of its luster for me once I realized how deep they had gotten into politics. I haven’t set foot in a church of any denomination since my grandmother’s funeral. Dad reached that point too; I vividly remember the first time he wrote a big “$0” on the Bishop’s Annual Appeal form.
Yep, what SlackerInc posted was in part a non-sequitur, with some parts of Red Herring followed with a gross lack of perspective tossed for good measure.
So putting the pro-life v. pro-choice argument aside as it has and will forever be done to death, do you disavow the posters’ arguments who are stating that it is impossible and illogical to be pro-life yet support a rape/incest exception?
Sorry, but it is just as illogical to support a rape/incest exception as it is to not care about fertilized eggs that are not in a women’s body.
It’s pretty rich for you of all people to accuse anyone of posting non sequiturs. :rolleyes: Enjoy that glass house of yours while it lasts!
Personally, I do think that’s illogical. It’s either an unborn human being deserving of rights, or it’s not.
So I don’t like that kind of compromise. What makes a lot more sense to me is guaranteeing the right to first trimester abortion, including access to clinics, within reason (if you live in a remote area of Alaska, I don’t think you have the right to have a clinic within a hundred miles), while letting states restrict or ban it after that point. Six weeks, however, as in the “heartbeat bills”, is too early. But I’m not that sympathetic to someone who “missed the boat” of the entire first trimester, unless there are serious extenuating circumstances like the discovery of anencephaly or that kind of thing.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, I did point at the flawed logic of yours, and you think attacking the poster will…
Nope, it does not make it better.