SCOTUS hearing on Roe V Wade

[thilanliyan]

This is my understanding of human nature and human dignity, and yes it is dominated by the teachings of Christ and His church. The early church fathers had the benefit of being familiar with the writings of the great Greek philosophers concerning such things as virtues - something modern society is sorely lacking. The development of many of these teachings aren't just pulled out of the air, they have been carefully thought out and reflected on for two millennia. Somehow, all that knowledge is cast asunder by modern mankind, as, apparently, modern mankind is better in every way that the great teachers who have come before us.

The ancient Greeks thought that everything was made of 4 elements...now we know matter is made of atoms (and their constituent parts). People blamed sin for the black death...now we know how viruses are made and spread. The Church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything else...now we know that's not the case.

Modern mankind is at least more knowledgeable (especially when it comes to biology). I don't think we are necessarily "better", but certainly able to make more rational decisions based on observable fact.
When many things could not be explained way back, it made sense to attribute it to an all-powerful being. I think mankind has outgrown its need for ALL religion. I didn't grow up in a religious household...my parents and family were my moral compass. I turned out more "moral" than a bunch of religious people I know. So a moral argument for religion doesn't hold water either IMO.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't think the court is likely to play much of a role in the end of democracy in the US. They'll do some unpopular and shitty things though. When GOP controlled states simply start deciding who won elections instead of counting votes, which is something a number of them are poised to do, is when democracy is effectively over here.

Actually, I think the courts will be instrumental in it. It is really only by the independent judiciary that we keep our democracy, once that is compromised (and it appears that is the case now) who is to stop someone like Trump from just ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever he likes? He did a lot of that during his term already and was only stopped by the courts. Now imagine that he had fully captured the courts and they sided with him when he decided that the election was not fair and he won. That is how democracy ends, with a court decision, not an armed coup.

 

[HomerJS]

Traditional Catholic teaching - at conception. Abortion was abhorrent and a sin against God and man simply on the basis that from the beginning, the embryo was considered to be a human being. We also believe that the embryo is co-created with with a couple and God, and thus has a soul, making the embryo a person, from it's first beginnings.

Methinks law based on a religious standard is a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

[eelw]

The ancient Greeks thought that everything was made of 4 elements...now we know matter is made of atoms (and their constituent parts). People blamed sin for the black death...now we know how viruses are made and spread. The Church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything else...now we know that's not the case.

Modern mankind is at least more knowledgeable (especially when it comes to biology). I don't think we are necessarily "better", but certainly able to make more rational decisions based on observable fact.
When many things could not be explained way back, it made sense to attribute it to an all-powerful being. I think mankind has outgrown its need for ALL religion. I didn't grow up in a religious household...my parents and family were my moral compass. I turned out more "moral" than a bunch of religious people I know. So a moral argument for religion doesn't hold water either IMO.

Indeed society improves and changes. But why are Americans so pigheaded on the constitution as written almost 300 years ago?

 

[fskimospy]

Traditional Catholic teaching - at conception. Abortion was abhorrent and a sin against God and man simply on the basis that from the beginning, the embryo was considered to be a human being. We also believe that the embryo is co-created with with a couple and God, and thus has a soul, making the embryo a person, from it's first beginnings.

So you’re saying if a fertility clinic is on fire and you see a tray of 20 embryos next to a 6 month old baby and you can only save one you’re saving the embryos as that’s 20 lives vs one?

 

[GoPackGo]

So you’re saying if a fertility clinic is on fire and you see a tray of 20 embryos next to a 6 month old baby and you can only save one you’re saving the embryos as that’s 20 lives vs one?

Not Surprisingly its really the only sin they seem to care about...oh and the gays...

 

[NWRMidnight]

Traditional Catholic teaching - at conception. Abortion was abhorrent and a sin against God and man simply on the basis that from the beginning, the embryo was considered to be a human being. We also believe that the embryo is co-created with with a couple and God, and thus has a soul, making the embryo a person, from it's first beginnings.

Traditional Catholic teaching that isn't backed up anywhere in the bible.. go figure. To top it all off, the priests are teaching these "traditional" concepts, in between molesting young boys.

 

[dank69]

So you’re saying if a fertility clinic is on fire and you see a tray of 20 embryos next to a 6 month old baby and you can only save one you’re saving the embryos as that’s 20 lives vs one?

Step it up like I did with Atreus: ask if he would rather slap a baby than set a tray of embryos on fire. He can be our new baby slapper.

 

[pmv]

Traditional Catholic teaching - at conception. Abortion was abhorrent and a sin against God and man simply on the basis that from the beginning, the embryo was considered to be a human being. We also believe that the embryo is co-created with with a couple and God, and thus has a soul, making the embryo a person, from it's first beginnings.

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history - PubMed

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Seems to imply (as I suspected) that the beliefs have changed over the millennia. Much of it seems to stem from the believe that sexual pleasure was itself sinful.
Odd though, that my impression is that opposition to the right to abortion in the US is largely driven by Protestants. Sounds as if your exact position only really goes back as far as 1974.

The abstract:

This article traces the history of the abortion policy of the Roman Catholic Church. The introductory section notes that the Church has consistently opposed abortion as evidence of sexual sin but has not always regarded it as homicide because Church teaching has never been definitive about the nature of the fetus. In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman's situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that a fetus first has a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a rational soul when the body was developed. The next period, 1500-1750, found anyone who resorted to contraception or abortion subject to excommunication (1588), saw these rules relaxed in 1591, and banned abortion even for those who would be murdered because of a pregnancy (1679). From 1750 to the present, excommunication was the punishment for all abortions (1869). This punishment was extended to medical personnel in 1917, but the penalty had exceptions if the woman was young, ignorant, or operating under duress or fear. In 1930, therapeutic abortions were condemned, and, in 1965, abortion was condemned as the taking of life rather than as a sexual sin. By 1974, the right to life argument had taken hold and became part of a theory of a "seamless garment" representing a consistent ethic of life. The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases (except as the unintentional byproduct of another medical procedure).

 

[eelw]

Let’s bring pregnancy from rape to the in vitro scenario. There’s a sick lab tech that swaps in their own sperm or egg and it isn’t discovered until after implantation. Conception has occurred. Should woman not be allowed to abort in this case? Or still God’s will for the embryo?

 

[fskimospy]

Step it up like I did with Atreus: ask if he would rather slap a baby than set a tray of embryos on fire. He can be our new baby slapper.

I remember Atreus would always say the question was unfair but could never specify why it was unfair.

To me it seems like a straightforward application of what they claim to believe. If they actually believe an embryo is the equivalent of human life then the answer is easy, save the embryos. Of course they realize that answer is stupid/evil and so they claim it's a trick instead of admitting it.

 

[fskimospy]

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history - PubMed

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Seems to imply (as I suspected) that the beliefs have changed over the millennia. Much of it seems to stem from the believe that sexual pleasure was itself sinful.
Odd though, that my impression is that opposition to the right to abortion in the US is largely driven by Protestants. Sounds as if your exact position only really goes back as far as 1974.

The abstract:

To me what gives away the game that this is about controlling women's sexual agency is the idea that there should be exceptions to abortion bans for rape. If you believe abortion is murder it makes exactly zero sense to have a rape exception because then it's just two horrible crimes instead of one.

 

[ivwshane]

The consequences are the same every time its banned: Women will still get abortions they'll just be done by assholes in trailers and some of the women will die and all of a sudden the republicans won't give a fuck about the sanctity of life.

The irony is that anti abortion laws were originally put in place to keep non doctors from performing them.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

defense of freedom, as long as you are not a woman. Gotcha.

You support the defense of freedom so long as it's not the unborn child, right? Hows that for a paradox?

I’m sure that’s why the grifters working for Trump lost 60 or so lawsuits trying to make that claim.

What's a grifter? I thought I was a deplorable?!!! Is that someone who lives in a boxcar?? You know, and they carry that thing / their possessions over their shoulder?
Everyone including women have the right to "privacy" as judged on R v W, as long as you are not an unborn child, right? That's why your logic cannot be trusted.

Ah, so you aren't just a very conservative religious true-believer, you are, in fact, out of your tiny mind.

I believe in God, yes. Does that mean I am perfect? No. Does it mean I have all the answers?? No. Is every argument I make against abortion sound? YES.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

The irony is that anti abortion laws were originally put in place to keep non doctors from performing them.

No they were put in place because mothers should not have the right to murder their own children. And 38 states agree with me. As well as the constitution. And what do you have? R v W. That's it. And now with Norma McCorvey, we know for certain the court case was rigged.

What does that mean? Your house of cards is about to come down. Very damaging when the centerpiece of the most important court case in history regarding the abortion of unborn children reverses her decision completely and later in life became an inspirational speaker warning against PP and the dangers of having abortions.

 

[fskimospy]

What's a grifter? I thought I was a deplorable?!!! Is that someone who lives in a boxcar?? You know, and they carry that thing / their possessions over their shoulder?

Grifters are petty con men. Basically these lawyers filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits in order to curry favor and get donations from delusional conservatives who couldn't admit Trump lost. So basically they stole a lot of money from sad/stupid people.

Honestly it's sad to see just how much contempt right wing elites have for the right wing base, none more than Trump. As Howard Stern said, Trump has nothing but contempt for the people who vote for him - he would have them all thrown out of any club he owned and probably have the carpet they stood on power washed.

Everyone including women have the right to "privacy" as judged on R v W, as long as you are not an unborn child, right? That's why your logic cannot be trusted.

No, the federal government does not recognize a fetus as a person, therefore they are not protected by the federal constitution.

 

[ivwshane]

Fuck off troll.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

To me what gives away the game that this is about controlling women's sexual agency is the idea that there should be exceptions to abortion bans for rape. If you believe abortion is murder it makes exactly zero sense to have a rape exception because then it's just two horrible crimes instead of one.

No because it comes down to motive. Rape is forced pregnancy. Consensual sex is a personal decision to get pregnant. That's why manor of death is very important. For example, if someone is drunk and they cross the centerline and kill someone in the other lane, they don't hold the victim accountable. That's what you are doing, you are holding the victim accountable for the actions of the mother / father.

 

[fskimospy]

No because it comes down to motive. Rape is forced pregnancy. Consensual sex is a personal decision to get pregnant. That's why manor of death is very important. For example, if someone is drunk and they cross the centerline and kill someone in the other lane, they don't hold the victim accountable. That's what you are doing, you are holding the victim accountable for the actions of the mother / father.

Walk me through this logic by finishing this sentence: 'in the case of rape it is okay to murder an unborn child because _________'.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Honestly it's sad to see just how much contempt right wing elites have for the right wing base, none more than Trump. As Howard Stern said, Trump has nothing but contempt for the people who vote for him - he would have them all thrown out of any club he owned and probably have the carpet they stood on power washed.

Howard Stern? Do you honest to God trust this guy? He's a dog, worse than Bill Clinton. And probably does just as much cocaine.

Thats hilarious. I will give you one mulligan to remove this post before I crush this lie. Have you been living under a rock?

 

[fskimospy]

Howard Stern? Do you honest to God trust this guy? He's a dog, worse than Bill Clinton. And probably does just as much cocaine.

Thats hilarious. I will give you one mulligan to remove this post before I crush this lie. Have you been living under a rock?

He's spent a lot more time with the guy than you have.

 

[thilanliyan]

Indeed society improves and changes. But why are Americans so pigheaded on the constitution as written almost 300 years ago?

That's the problem with a conservative mindset...they want everything (or least things they agree with) to stay the same always. And in the USA's case they make up a large percentage of the population.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Walk me through this logic by finishing this sentence: 'in the case of rape it is okay to murder an unborn child because _________'.

It was a forced, non consensual pregnancy done through a felonious criminal act. The exception proves the rule.

 

[fskimospy]

It was a forced, non consensual pregnancy done through a felonious criminal act. The exception proves the rule.

So to be clear you're saying it is okay to murder an innocent child if that child came into this world without the consent of the mother?

 

[thilanliyan]

Howard Stern? Do you honest to God trust this guy? He's a dog, worse than Bill Clinton. And probably does just as much cocaine.

Thats hilarious. I will give you one mulligan to remove this post before I crush this lie. Have you been living under a rock?

And you trust Trump? What about all his well documented lies? He could be lying about his feelings on abortion too. And considering he lies about pretty much everything, that statement of his you put up earlier probably IS a lie.