Exactly. Methodists are nestled in the mainstream.
Evangelicals are the odd ones, and very often the source of the religion-related problems in our nation.
Should ANY Rights Be Left Up to the States?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Evangelicals are the odd ones, and very often the source of the religion-related problems in our nation.
It could be defined as that but the word is vague when it comes to Christian terms and I would venture that it's intentionally so.
He's right in many senses that there is a reason that the cons latch onto this one human rights issue in their country and turn a blind eye towards others. But in the end he's still a liberal attacking conservatives. Nothing really to stop the presses on.
I sort of get what you mean but because of the wide variety of systems all of these terms are very loosely defined.
I'm an Missouri Synod Lutheran by theology and we tend to have some of the same views on social issues as the Evangelicals do. But our church has been in the US since 1838 when we fled the Prussian Union of 1817. They then settled in St. Louis, hence the name "Missouri Synod".
So are we mainstream or Evangelicals?
Gee I wonder why smaller states wouldn’t want to get rid of the electoral college when this is the liberal mindset.
- Rights aren't granted by a government. In a legitimate representative democracy a citizens inherent, inalienable rights are protected by the government.
- Rights are limited in that person 1 has no valid claim to infringe on person 2's rights.
- In the United States the protection of the citizens rights are delegated to different governing bodies which allows the citizens varying levels of control over how their rights are protected and what laws they will accept to live under in order to protect those rights.
The Pill and similar (hormonal implants, shots, rings, patches) can function as a mode of suppressing ovulation, altering the chemistry of the cervical mucus making it difficult for sperm to enter and survive in the cervix, these two modes are contraceptive in nature. However the pill and similar also alter the endometrial lining, making it inhospitable to implantation of an embryo, so in those circumstances it is certainly abortive.
The IUD also has a couple of aspects of control that stimulates the body's immune response that causes inflammation which makes it difficult for an embryo to implant in the uterus, which is certainly abortive. Additionally there is evidence that the IUD also can inhibit or stop the normal developmental of a fertilized ovum, so from a life begins at conception adherent, this would also be considered abortive.
Also if life begins at conception what rights do the fertilized embryos created for infertile couples have? Must they all be given the opportunity to develop into a child? Will those couples who have unused embryos be forced to place them up for "adoption"?
As my grandmother used to say, "We're better than Wisconsin Synod."
Wow - that is some mental gymnastics there. Do me favor, go ask a gyno, or hell, any family practice doctor if hormonal birth control is abortive. You would be laughed at.
Mental gymnastics by detailing the facts? Ok Snidely, I know your MO around here, we'll all say you win if you just STFU. At no point ITT did I say that hormonal birth control is primarily abortive in nature, but to deny that it can act in that manner is just being stubborn and obtuse.
Like I said, go ask a family practice doc if hormonal BC is abortive - take a video of the laughing response.
Primarily, no. I acknowledged that in my initial post that you blew a screw on. Quit being such a tool.
So your assertion is that all hormonal birth control methods have absolutely no capacity to act as an abortifacient? Is that your position?
For third time, and im not sure how much more clear I can make it, but I will try: The most popular female BC is sterilization. Following that is hormonal BC. Hormonal BC is not abortive BC.
So to tie it all up, your statement of, "Most birth control that women utilize are essentially abortive in nature." is wrong on several fronts.
Lutherans register as mainstream on my radar. Your particular group may not; I have no basis for saying.
Everything I know about Lutherans I learned from Garrison Keillor.
The 10th ammendment clearly says any right not given the the constituion belongs to the states. Those rights you mentioned are in thr constitution, therefore all citizens have them. As far as the original quedtion. Neither onr was close toy definition. I do not believe abortion is a right
Basically there are 2 large and one medium sized Lutheran church bodies along with a bunch of smaller ones.
The large ones are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). The medium sized body is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).
If you want to look at it from a liberal to conservative spectrum the ELCA is by far the most liberal, has women pastors, allows homosexuals to be pastors, takes no position on abortion but most of the top level clergy is pro-choice., allows gay marriage. They also serve communion to all baptized Christians.
That having been said it should be noted that the ELCA allows individual churches to use discretion on these views. So you could very well meet an ELCA pastor who would completely refuse to conduct a homosexual wedding or you could find a ELCA church that refuses to hire a pastor because he is homosexual. So just the national organization allows it doesn't mean every church goes along with it.
The LCMS would be in the middle but far closer to the WELS than the ELCA. Only males can be pastors, against abortion, no gay marriage or homosexual pastors. (I'm personally of the belief that the policy on homosexual pastors should be that of what the ELCA used to be which is requiring them to be celibate.) They also practice closed communion which means somewhat within pastorial discretion a person has to affirm that they hold to the same doctrinal beliefs as the church to take communion.
WELS takes things a step further than the LCMS in that women are not even allowed a vote in church meetings. They also tell their followers not to pray with Christians outside of their church. There are some minor theological differences about God's calling into lay church offices that don't really impact greatly the way the church runs.
For a long time the LCMS and WELS had what is called "altar/pulpit fellowship" which is basically a recognition that the two churches believed the same things and therefore could exchange pastors and people could commune at the other church. The WELS however broke the altar/pulpit fellowship because the LCMS engaged in talks with one of the predecessor church
A thing you have to recognize about the conservative Lutheran churches is that there is a constant fear of "unionism". Unionism is the combining of two conflicting belief systems into one. So what orthodox Lutherans fear is that they will lose the doctrine which they consider to be truth by being too cozy with Christians that are not in their church body. This makes conservative Lutherans kind of like Roman Catholics in this way and something that differentiates them from most protestant churches and the so called "Evangelicals". Lutherans might have many of the same conservative beliefs on social issues as they do, but they generally don't want to get too cozy with them at the same time.
The smaller Lutheran churches run the gambit. Some the larger small churches are breakaways from the ELCA who felt the ELCA was too liberal but the LCMS too conservative. There are also some that broke away from the WELS because they didn't feel the WELS broke the alter/pulpit fellowship with the LCMS fast enough.
WTF does that have to do with anything? He didn't save my mother from cancer so fcvk him.
Nor right to privacy. Or right to travel among states. Interpreted rights are as solemn authored rights. Even as much. You hit it on the head by citing right to individual choice.
The right beats back on the threat the right to life movement holds on individual choice. Abortion is a salivating target on the ultimate prize, which is personal choice. The Christian Right, via courts, and eventually Supreme Court appointments through an anemic and unconscious president will control of social and cultural behavior. 1984 in 2024.
Too extreme? We barely fought off an insurrection. The Republicans are building the machinery for a bigger and better one next election. The SCOTUS is in place with dubious members to specify whatever they need.
They shouldn't be forced to get one.
That seems awfully simple. Were you looking for something else?
Actually, the issue is whether people have control of their own bodies or can the state dictate what medical procedures they can or can't receive - and that applies to everyone.
Exactly. Abortion is a flash point. The agenda is far reaching. Thomas has already made that clear.
Nope, the numbers are out there - are you going to look, or would you like me to provide them?
Ummm...whut? Are you claiming numbers to support the idea that women opposed to it are being forced to get abortions in this country?
I hope I'm still around when the debate has narrowed down to which Christian franchises we are allowed to belong to.
