In America WP, EVERY citizen in every state should enjoy the SAME rights under the Constitution. So, yes.You guys REALLY want to tell EVERYONE how they should live.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In America WP, EVERY citizen in every state should enjoy the SAME rights under the Constitution. So, yes.You guys REALLY want to tell EVERYONE how they should live.
For the vast majority of this country’s history, abortion was illegal.And there is not a "right to abort" distinction anywhere in the constitution, so where would we derive that unenumerated right? Because there is a right to life...
No, we just want to give children a right to live.Yet you want to tell women how to live?
So, if the fetus is a person and has “life”, how can you prioritize the life of the mother over the life of a fetus? In medical ethics, you cant do that. You can’t sacrifice one person to save the life of another.Only if a panel of Drs., who had examined the expectant mother personally, concluded that the mothers life was in mortal danger.
Fine, roll the dice and see what happens.So, if the fetus is a person and has “life”, how can you prioritize the life of the mother over the life of a fetus? In medical ethics, you cant do that. You can’t sacrifice one person to save the life of another.
By saying that life exists at conception, you’re giving the fetus equal footing.
On the contrary - that happens everyday. Its being programmed into AI, its a calculation in actuarial and insurance disciplines, its a factor in law (payouts in lawsuits for death, injury, etc.), as well as the medical field - remember the doctors choosing who gets treatment during the covid peaks?So, if the fetus is a person and has “life”, how can you prioritize the life of the mother over the life of a fetus? In medical ethics, you cant do that. You can’t sacrifice one person to save the life of another.
By saying that life exists at conception, you’re giving the fetus equal footing.
No he wouldn't as that fulfilled prophecy.In retrospect, He would have wished it for Judas.
I suppose it makes sense to imagine Jesus as being that superstitious.No he wouldn't as that fulfilled prophecy.
Faith, not superstition. What evangelicals seem to not understand was the basis of Jesus' teachings is to take care of the poor, sickly, and the persecuted. If we were truly a Christian nation, welfare would not be a necessity.I suppose it makes sense to imagine Jesus as being that superstitious.
Sort of disappointing, though.
So what?For the vast majority of this country’s history, abortion was illegal.
Is there a meaningful difference? Facts and logic don't require faith.Faith, not superstition.
I approve of the sentiment, but I wonder if your last comment would be true. We are a rich nation, so maybe. But how about when times were bad (e.g., the Depression) or when they will be soon enough (climate change)?What evangelicals seem to not understand was the basis of Jesus' teachings is to take care of the poor, sickly, and the persecuted. If we were truly a Christian nation, welfare would not be a necessity.
I worry that you think whether Methodism is traditional enough is an important issue in this discussion.I somewhat agree with him in that those people also deserve love and care AS WELL AS the unborn. I also agree that the unborn are convenient for conservatives for that reason. But the mere fact of them being convenient for conservatives doesn't mean that the conservatives are wrong on that, it's just shows they have a giant blind spot for a lot of people who have already been born.
That having been said I would like to know on what basis they call him a "traditional Christian pastor"
Just a quick google search reveals him to be United Methodist Church. And while I don't necessarily have anything against Methodists, they are not socially conservative or orthodox in the slightest.
In his statement he failed to affirm (and I don't know if it was intentional or not) that the unborn do also need love.
There hasn't been a time, including the depression, when there should have been enough to keep the country fed, and healthy.I approve of the sentiment, but I wonder if your last comment would be true. We are a rich nation, so maybe. But how about when times were bad (e.g., the Depression) or when they will be soon enough (climate change)?
Individual good acts aren't always enough.
@What Would Jesus Do? This wasnt a rhetorical question, im legitimately asking - where are you deriving a "right to abortion" from? Sounds like we both agree rights dont need to be explicitly outlined in the constitution, but they do need to be implied, derived, or inferred from existing rights, yea? So what are you deriving that from? And follow-up, how does that trump the explicit right to life?And there is not a "right to abort" distinction anywhere in the constitution, so where would we derive that unenumerated right? Because there is a right to life...
Just pointing out a fact.So what?
If everything that used to be illegal had to stay illegal, what sort of society would be be today?
I imagine there are plenty of folks - most in the Republican party (or worse) - who think that would be great. But would it, even for them?
I assume you meant "wouldn't."There hasn't been a time, including the depression, when there should have been enough to keep the country fed, and healthy.
Samaritan's Purse begs to differ.Governments are much better equipped to do what Jesus called for us to do.
I worry that you think whether Methodism is traditional enough is an important issue in this discussion.
On the contrary - that happens everyday. Its being programmed into AI, its a calculation in actuarial and insurance disciplines, its a factor in law (payouts in lawsuits for death, injury, etc.), as well as the medical field - remember the doctors choosing who gets treatment during the covid peaks?
We value one human life over another every day - its cold, but its a fact.
Samaritan's Purse feeds, clothes, and shelters all the hungry people in the country?Samaritan's Purse begs to differ.
Shew bot.Samaritan's Purse feeds, clothes, and shelters all the hungry people in the country?
It does - and its a rapidly growing topic in the AI sphere - especially in regard to autonomous cars. Does the car hit the pedestrian to save the passenger or vice versa?Maybe it’s semantics, but I’d disagree. In no other place in medicine to we actively take a life to preserve another life. If the stance of the right is that life begins at conception, you are actively ending one life to preserve another. To put a point on it, you’re killing one person to save a second person. If you’re buying into life at conception, but allowing abortion to preserve the life of the mother, that’s what you’re doing. That doesn’t happen elsewhere
Kobayashi MaruIt does - and its a rapidly growing topic in the AI sphere - especially in regard to autonomous cars. Does the car hit the pedestrian to save the passenger or vice versa?
And we saw it a lot in the covid spikes: 2 lives, dont do anything and both die, so you are picking one to save.
Essentially how it is already (based on what the mainstream is saying about the new laws over the last 4 years)At the end of the day maybe turning this over to the states will be a decent outcome.
Anti-Abortion? Move to a red state.
Pro Abortion? Move to a blue state.
For the majority of this nation’s history, slavery was legal too.For the vast majority of this country’s history, abortion was illegal.
Slavery was legal from the country inception until abolition, so about 90 years. US has been a country for 246 years, so 36.5% of the nations history slavery was legal. Majority is more than 50%....so your statement in irrefutably false.For the majority of this nation’s history, slavery was legal too.
Which proves that things can be changed over time…..such as Roe.For the majority of this nation’s history, slavery was legal too.
How phuquin' dumb are you notlongago? WHAT did I say?! I said EXACTLY what you proved with your blackboard, "show your work" work.......,So MY statement is is verifiably TRUE, AS I stated! Do you normally read at the compensation rate of a second grader? No wonder you are a MAGA, Trump dick polisher....Slavery was legal from the country inception until abolition, so about 90 years. US has been a country for 246 years, so 36.5% of the nations history slavery was legal. Majority is more than 50%....so your statement in irrefutably false.
I took it to mean a mainstream franchise. Why would you take it to mean conservative?It is an important issue if you are labeling him a "traditional Christian pastor". Because traditional in this context is often assumed to be conservative.
Now I would think "mainstream" would be referring to tradition, mainstream churched...Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and nor so much the evangelical mega TV churches ...but then, I am left-handed and old....I took it to mean a mainstream franchise. Why would you take it to mean conservative?
Ooh we got a button pushed. I love the fire, but don't hurt yourself.How phuquin' dumb are you notlongago? WHAT did I say?! I said EXACTLY what you proved with your blackboard, "show your work" work.......,So MY statement is is verifiably TRUE, AS I stated! Do you normally read at the compensation rate of a second grader? No wonder you are a MAGA, Trump dick polisher....
Now you tell me what you think I said......
Actually, I believe slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation.....So my math is.....Slavery came to the colonies in 1619 and remained "legal" until 1863 (244 years)....Since the Emancipation Proclamation, 159 years have passed since slavery has been held as "illegal"....I used "the majority of this nation's history" intentionally....using the 1619 date as the date slaves were first brought to the colonies...."the colonies" being part of this nation's history....Do the math....my calculations support my initial claim.
Do you give the "Math lessons" at your MAGA rallies?
the nation's history starts with Leif Ericson......Ooh we got a button pushed. I love the fire, but don't hurt yourself.
I know it'll infuriate you, but you said "nation's history". This nation wasn't a nation until 1776 so that's when the clock starts. Go ahead and cry about semantics (that is true), but choose your words more carefully next time so you don't come across as a raving lunatic.
Cue the " elementary school child who's afraid of getting his phone taken away " spelling of course words and cliched, assumed (incorrectly of course) insults. And go!
Some birth control that women utilize are essentially abortive in nature. Does that shock and upset you as well?I googled abortions by state. It is shocking.
not a fan of making it illegal but what a horrible stat.
sure think more could be done in terms of free birth control and paying mothers to put up babies for adoption.
Whatever you say. But good job on the restaint.the nation's history starts with Leif Ericson......
How do you figure that?Most birth control that women utilize are essentially abortive in nature. Does that shock and upset you as well?