Someone needed to keep this thread up to the standard that Clothy set . . . thanks adaher, keep up the ‘good’ work!
CMC fnord!
Impossible. Nothing can top Clothy’s story of the jogging liberal and his electric lawnmower and his “proof” of said story.
room temperature can be sexist
Pro tip: if the article you’re citing cites a real news outlet as its main source, it’s better just to link to that.
It sounds a little less stupid when you consider the context - this is not a new issue.
Men and women have different physiology. Women have a slightly higher body temperature, and are socially encouraged to wear clothing that does less to insulate them (compare a dress with a suit), and as a result, women tend to prefer higher temperatures at work. But typically, workplace thermostats do not reflect this. So yeah, this isn’t pulled out of thin air - a temperature that may be comfortable for Governor Cuomo is liable to be incredibly uncomfortable for Mrs. Nixon.
I wonder if it was named that in order to try to trick Trump into supporting it.
Vox published a good piece on the bill:
Chelsea Clinton invokes Christianity to support Roe:
Cythnia Nixon blames high turnout for her loss:
Please explain how this is a stupid idea.
Because Christianity preaches against taking life. There’s no more Christian argument for abortion than there is for the death penalty.
It’s funny you mention the death penalty, because holy shit is the bible full of that. The list of shit that gets punished by death in the bible ranges from “Insulting a prophet” to “picking up sticks on a saturday” to “having gay sex” to “having sex with someone you’re not married to”.
Similarly, to the degree that the bible directly addresses abortion, in Exodus 22:21, it does not treat it as murder. You’re not “taking a life” when you hit a woman so as to cause miscarriage, according to the bible.
I realize that most modern conservative christian doctrine is firmly anti-abortion. That doesn’t mean that supporting legal abortion is necessarily anti-christian. And the argument she makes makes perfect sense; as a christian, opposed to suffering, she doesn’t want to see a return to the good ol’ days of backalley abortions. Because that’s what banning abortion nationwide will do. Not “stop abortion”, “make abortion unsafe and make a lot of people die because of it”.
You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t make it stupid. :rolleyes: Again, I really feel like comparing to SRIOTD is warranted. Compare this to the republican senator who opposed the medicaid expansion because he thought it would make more people come to god.
Well, “as a deeply religious person” I’d be very interested in what church she’s going to that preaches that abortion is acceptable.
Maybe it’s the episcopal church?
The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has taken an abortion-rights position and has passed resolutions at its triannual General Convention. It rejects government impediments, “…unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.” This is balanced by expressing the seriousness of such a decision and admonishes that it should be used “only in extreme scenarios.” The church also opposes state laws requiring parental notification by under aged women.[57] The ECUSA also condemns violence against abortion clinics.[57] The Church does express opposition to “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.”
…That’s pretty close to Chelsea Clinton’s position. The church Chelsea Clinton went to in childhood was the United Methodist Church, a church which supported abortion rights groups and Roe V. Wade until 2016, and to this day has a very nuanced take on it.
It’s worth noting that neither of these groups are niche churches. They’re not some tiny fringe group. Both denominations are huge, with the Episcopalians having millions of members in the US and the United Methodists having tens of millions.
I mean, is it news to you that there are Christian groups who are pro-choice? Self-identified “pro-choice” people have consistently made up a solid half of Americans, some 80% of Americans support legal abortion in at least some cases, and there just aren’t that many non-Christians in America.
So no, this is not some “stupid idea”. Christianity is basically a meaningless umbrella term. What does it take to be a christian? You have to believe in some guy named jesus and in a god. That’s it. Trump has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that even the most devout supporters of Christ don’t give two shits about what Christ actually taught or believed; not demanding abortion be made illegal is peanuts compared to that.
Let me try another way, because if this fact is so unbelievable to you, something in your model of what America looks like is slightly broken, and it may very easily be something that would lead to some really tragic decision-making, like believing that Christians aren’t the absolutely ridiculous portion of the population in the US they obviously are.
67% of Americans support Roe vs. Wade standing.
75% of Americans identify as Christian; 62% belong to a church congregation, so naturally, at most 25% of Americans are not Christians.
This means that at least 42% of Americans identify as Christians and support the continued standing of Roe v. Wade. If we act like every person in America who doesn’t identify as a Christian is pro-choice, we still end up with almost half the country being made up of Christians who are pro choice.
If we make the even more unreasonable assumption that every person who isn’t a member of a church congregation is pro-choice, that still leaves us with between a quarter and a third of the country who both belongs to a church congregation and is pro-choice.
So no, given how hugely prevalent Christianity is in the US, and how popular moderate pro-choice positions are, and given that the Bible’s take on abortion is hardly a slam-dunk “thou shalt not remove a zygote from thy womb”, and given how horrific and visible the consequences of abortion being illegal are, it should come as absolutely no surprise that there are Christian groups who are pro-choice.
But those are clearly no true Christians.
@ Budget Player Cadet — I appreciate your arithmetic and believe that in this case your conclusion is quite correct.
But IIRC similar arithmetic logic can be used to conclude that a non-zero number of Americans simultaneously
- believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and
- believe in UFOs.
(I forget my Genesis. Did God create the extraterrestrial aliens on Day 4 or Day 5?)
In the specific case of the Roe v Wade question, 17% lost their way in the complicated phrasing, and took a stab: they’re “conservative” so they don’t want any “overturning.”
The average American voter is astonishingly stupid. 49% of voters are even stupider than that!
What happened to “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?” and all of of the Biblical demands that you go out and slay the enemies of God?
Didn’t Ezekiel talk about UFOs?
“You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”?
It goes on:
“But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.
And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.
Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you turn not you away.”
None of which has anything to do with abortion, or for the death penalty, as far as I can tell, but there you go. There are older references, in the bible and Hammurabi’s Code.
??
Exodus 22:21
Just a few of the many translations.
Overreach much?