Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

if it's really about protecting babies rather than controlling women's body parts.

It's not. The dead giveaway was "hide the sausage." It's the perennial misogyny of old religious men. It's the Crucifix Taliban desperately trying to maintain the grasp of their grubby, aged, enfeebled fingers on young c-nt.

[MissThundercat]

If it harms none, do it.
Protect the weak from the strong.

So you should pipe down about same sex marriage.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Except that Catholics are taught that same-sex marriages violates the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, thereby doing harm.

Of course, there's the whole issue of divorce and "quickie" marriages to consider in that "sanctity" equation. But as far as we know, Joe's not a hypocrite, and I'm pretty sure divorce would be illegal in the Dictatorship of Joe-topia.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The Catholic Church promotes jus bellum iustum, directly in contradiction of Jesus' teaching. So joe is indeed a hypocrite, but he's in good company.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The baby. The choicers ignore the baby who is defenseless.
I keep reading that birth control is the responsibility of the woman (horsebleep). If you want to play hide the salami, then make sure there are no complications.

I find this hypocritical in the extreme.
Seems to me the probirthers and the prochoicers just 'ignore the baby who is defenseless' at different times. I hate the thought of abortion. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary. However-- I find is reprehensible that people think it is OK to promote the birth and then leave the 'defenseless baby' at the mercy of the world that doesn't provide food, shelter, healthcare, protection or the resources for the baby to succeed in life. Add that to the active movement to remove access to GYN care and birth control and it makes me ill to think anyone claims they are advocating for the baby. NO. YOU. ARE. NOT. You are just fooling yourself. Until the world has changed you are forcing these mothers and babies into an untenable situation. Who is doing more harm? The woman who may make a choice believing the baby would not be provided for or the person who takes the choice away from the woman and then does not provide the things the woman already knows she can't provide. All the while the culture passes judgement saying it is the woman's fault like no peni5 is involved. Because she got pregnant she should suffer the consequences. The baby suffers but no one want to visit that.

Actively advocating for the baby would be working to help provide good healthcare for women including birth control (this has been proven to statistically improve not only the quality of life for the mother but significantly improves multiple outcomes for the baby.) Actively advocating for the baby would be working to improve access to healthy food for the mother and the family. Provide for education. Provide for safe shelter. Provide treatment for mothers who have mental illness or substance use issues. It is possible you do all those things on a small scale but society at large does not.

The 'defenseless baby' is more likely to be provided for by the pro-choicers with their views on a social net than the group that wants to restrict access to BC, Healthcare, abortion, cut funding to schools, WIC and other programs. No high ground here at all.

I have cared for people who have had to make very hard choices. Some chose a termination and others to keep the child. I have tried not to pass judgement- even the best birth control fails. I figure God will sort it out with them. I can say that keeping the baby is not always a successful venture even with multiple sources trying to advocate for the Mum. People think that because they take a choice away the mother will just get on with mothering. Not all Mums bond. The decision can destroy a relationship. Statistically it increases the chance of domestic violence. It can cause the family to who was scraping by to fall into abject poverty no matter how much they try to cut corners.

The next argument is 'Well, they should give the baby up'. In many cultures this is worse than having an AB. Totally unacceptable. Everyone talks about they psych implications of an AB. There isn't a choice that doesn't cause psych issues. Adoption causes equally traumatic results as does keeping.

[no one can tell this sends me somewhere north of the stratosphere can they?]

[LynahFan]

The baby. The choicers ignore the baby who is defenseless.
I keep reading that birth control is the responsibility of the woman (horsebleep). If you want to play hide the salami, then make sure there are no complications.

"Make sure?" Tell that to my friend the oncologist and his wife the pediatrician, who got knocked up while in med school together. They were thinking about marriage anyway, but certainly didn't plan on a baby at that time. She always says, "It's just so embarrassing - we're both doctors. It's not like we didn't know how this stuff WORKS!" If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.

Edit to add: that recently became my second favorite accidental pregnancy story. The first is now my MBA classmate, married with three kids. On his way to his vasectomy appointment, he got into a motorcycle accident and broke his leg pretty badly. So there he was, laid up at home for 6 weeks with nothing to do....and now he has four kids.

[burd]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The baby. The choicers ignore the baby who is defenseless.

You may have already made it clear, joe, but is your position on this based on your church's position on when a fetus becomes or has a "soul?" I mean, you use the word "baby." Assuming you believe an egg becomes a baby upon fertilization, is that belief guided by the Catholic Church?

I ask because Blackmun's analysis in Roe was based on his threshold conclusion that a woman has a fundamental right to privacy, which brought the 14th Amendment balancing process into play. He took a fairly scientific approach in using viability of the fetus as a guide in that balancing process. Unless am missing something, you are using "babyhood" as a trump card to create a status upon fertilization that completely removes the balancing process from the equation. If that is so, what is the specific source in scriptures or teachings of the church?

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation, and I'd like to assume you all know this already, but I suspect that FEW of you do!!!

This is just crazy, you debate the minutia, while ALL breaking the major rules, and not just once or twice in weakness, but DAILY, and often on purpose!!!


And you all deserve ****ation, too. Don't even try to argue that you don't. Scripture is CLEAR, those who did MIRACLES in his name were denied. How many of you losers can even come close to being able to claim HALF as much as those???


Wow, you people are SO lost and/or deluded, all of this just goes RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, eh? Just like Proverbs said it would. It's sad

Oh, but it's ok, you can just deem me a "fanatic", despite the fact I'm not even a Christian(oh wait, THAT is how you will discredit anything I say), or you can just ignore me like the average lazy ignorant human will, hey, you will be part of the majority, feel empowered about that!!

The Scripture might say, he that walks down the path less taken, that walks down the narrow way, instead of taking the wide path? But wait, what does the Scripture know, it was written by nutbags on mushrooms, right???

[unofan]

OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation

Since there's no one out there actually judging us, I'm ok with this.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

A look into the history of abortion is fascinating. The Church, did not define life 'from conception' but Quickening (feeling movement). That was the definition until fairly recently. A quick google finds that there was much commentary in the Church over the centuries that was more focused on the sin of sex rather than the result. For some reason the focus has shifted from sex being a heinous sin to suffer if you get a result you haven't planned on.

Main point here- if you are a Christian, ascribing to the teachings of Christ, then you should be helping women in a way that is most likely to result in not needing to debate this. Colorado funded free birth control and had a 40% reduction in AB. The places that are the most vociferous against AB also are the ones blocking access or sig decreasing access to BC/AB. Ironically they also have horrifyingly bad numbers for prenatal care and infant mortality. SOme of the numbers are worse than 3rd world countries.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation, and I'd like to assume you all know this already, but I suspect that FEW of you do!!!

This is just crazy, you debate the minutia, while ALL breaking the major rules, and not just once or twice in weakness, but DAILY, and often on purpose!!!


And you all deserve ****ation, too. Don't even try to argue that you don't. Scripture is CLEAR, those who did MIRACLES in his name were denied. How many of you losers can even come close to being able to claim HALF as much as those???


Wow, you people are SO lost and/or deluded, all of this just goes RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, eh? Just like Proverbs said it would. It's sad

Oh, but it's ok, you can just deem me a "fanatic", despite the fact I'm not even a Christian(oh wait, THAT is how you will discredit anything I say), or you can just ignore me like the average lazy ignorant human will, hey, you will be part of the majority, feel empowered about that!!

The Scripture might say, he that walks down the path less taken, that walks down the narrow way, instead of taking the wide path? But wait, what does the Scripture know, it was written by nutbags on mushrooms, right???

I have no idea what you are trying to convey or what this is directed at. Anyone?

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

"Make sure?" Tell that to my friend the oncologist and his wife the pediatrician, who got knocked up while in med school together. They were thinking about marriage anyway, but certainly didn't plan on a baby at that time. She always says, "It's just so embarrassing - we're both doctors. It's not like we didn't know how this stuff WORKS!" If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.

Edit to add: that recently became my second favorite accidental pregnancy story. The first is now my MBA classmate, married with three kids. On his way to his vasectomy appointment, he got into a motorcycle accident and broke his leg pretty badly. So there he was, laid up at home for 6 weeks with nothing to do....and now he has four kids.

I had a couple who got pregnant after she had her tubes tied and he had a vasectomy. They were in their 40s. Multiple medical risk factors and complications for the Mum who had a slew of medical conditions that should have precluded pregnancy even if there was no vas and BTL. While everyone was trying to sort out how best to keep her safe if she retained the pregnancy, she miscarried.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

A look into the history of abortion is fascinating. The Church, did not define life 'from conception' but Quickening (feeling movement). That was the definition until fairly recently. A quick google finds that there was much commentary in the Church over the centuries that was more focused on the sin of sex rather than the result. For some reason the focus has shifted from sex being a heinous sin to suffer if you get a result you haven't planned on.

Main point here- if you are a Christian, ascribing to the teachings of Christ, then you should be helping women in a way that is most likely to result in not needing to debate this. Colorado funded free birth control and had a 40% reduction in AB. The places that are the most vociferous against AB also are the ones blocking access or sig decreasing access to BC/AB. Ironically they also have horrifyingly bad numbers for prenatal care and infant mortality. SOme of the numbers are worse than 3rd world countries.

Anti-abortion has nothing to do with life. It's a political cudgel.

[St. Clown]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation, and I'd like to assume you all know this already, but I suspect that FEW of you do!!!

This is just crazy, you debate the minutia, while ALL breaking the major rules, and not just once or twice in weakness, but DAILY, and often on purpose!!!


And you all deserve ****ation, too. Don't even try to argue that you don't. Scripture is CLEAR, those who did MIRACLES in his name were denied. How many of you losers can even come close to being able to claim HALF as much as those???


Wow, you people are SO lost and/or deluded, all of this just goes RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, eh? Just like Proverbs said it would. It's sad

Oh, but it's ok, you can just deem me a "fanatic", despite the fact I'm not even a Christian(oh wait, THAT is how you will discredit anything I say), or you can just ignore me like the average lazy ignorant human will, hey, you will be part of the majority, feel empowered about that!!

The Scripture might say, he that walks down the path less taken, that walks down the narrow way, instead of taking the wide path? But wait, what does the Scripture know, it was written by nutbags on mushrooms, right???

He who lives by the mysticism dies by the mysticism.

[joecct]

Anti-abortion has nothing to do with life. It's a political cudgel.

For anyone but the RCC I would agree with you. The evangelicals did not embrace RtL until they wrapped themselves around the "moral majority".

Of course the USCCB is so wrapped up in the Democrat party, they are conflicted on when to say you're bad and when to say you're good. It usually involves government money.