Sure, you're not. But a lot of religious organizations themselves are. 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae last year, for one example.
Alabama outlaws abortion
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Sure, you're not. But a lot of religious organizations themselves are. 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae last year, for one example.
I believe all life is sacred too but I have to be realistic, the world we live in isn't an ideal one but while we differ on the ideas we can have the same or similar aims. We can all agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is far far better than the cure. Religious Organisations that take such extreme views aren't irrelevant but don't offer to bring about change in a positive way by helping people with problems but think people are the problem. It isn't how we're meant to be tbh, not the true Christian way. We have to face the truth that teenagers have sex, however it isn't just Religious 'folk' who deny to themselves these facts. Parents do too and they need to equip themselves and their children for modern life at the right time not just blinker themselves. They are the same side of the argument but believe themselves opposed in the aim.
Sure, I completely agree with the first part, that's why I said removing religious voices from this debate would be very helpful.
The problem with the bolded part is that these organizations define what it means to be christian for huge swathes of the christian community, not you, and they don't agree with you. The Humanae Vitae, which is still in effect and surely applies to everyone who wants to properly follow that religion, is an example of that.
Agree again, but parents generally aren't writing policy papers which tell their followers that contraception is intrinsically immoral and evil, or that condoms don't help in preventing HIV for another example.
I don't mean to pick on one religion here, this is just the one I'm most familiar with, but in general preventing pregnancies is not in the interest of any religion that wants to increase its numbers. Perhaps someone familiar with other religions can tell us if it's the same for them.
I'm not an expert, well obviously but surely it is unconstitutional in the US to have Religion involved in making Law and working within Politics. I don't see why all people can't be involved in the debate and it should be undemocratic to demand that people whatever their faith or not be kept from taking part in local or national/international debate so in that part obviously we disagree. As far as the US goes surely they've come a long way from their beginnings.
Parents are completely abdicating their responsibility in many ways but particularly in this one and don't need to be writing policy papers. The Church is meant to be separated from the State and all sorts of people are forgetting that.
Again, I don't disagree with anything you've said there,but it doesn't address any of what I said. Religions tell their followers, extra-democratically, that abortion and contraception is wrong. The leaders of religions make that decision, not their followers, and the followers have no say in it.
If the followers have no say in it why is Abortion and Contraception available in Italy, a Catholic country? Religious leaders talk, people make their own minds up. I honestly don't see what your issue is.
If the followers have no say in it why is Abortion and Contraception available in Italy, a Catholic country? Religious leaders talk, people make their own minds up. I honestly don't see what your issue is.
So, those Italian Catholics have ignored the edicts of their own church. Some would say that's not being a true Catholic - in fact, the church itself.
Not everyone in every country has the luxury of ignoring the orders of the church.
Are you a Catholic? A Christian even? If not then I can't really see how you would know what it is to be one or either. Whatever we do is down to our own personal conscience and hardly something an atheist can have the experience or expertise to demand.
As for as other religions obviously I can't speak but have you ever heard of a jew eating bacon?
Are you a Catholic? A Christian even? If not then I can't really see how you would know what it is to be one or either. Whatever we do is down to our own personal conscience and hardly something an atheist can have the experience or expertise to demand.
As for as other religions obviously I can't speak but have you ever heard of a jew eating bacon?
But it's not just down to your personal choice in some African and South American countries, as it wasn't in the not so distant at all past here in Ireland. Church edicts had to be followed and that is still the case in many countries today. In our countries now, Christians have the luxury to tailor their beliefs, and whether or not you dispute if that means your still a true Catholic or not, the church itself certainly believes you should follow everything they say. The likes of Mary McAleese who argue publicly against that get effectively excommunicated.
And in the US, evangelicals do not get that luxury, for example.
I was raised as Catholic and I'm not one now. But as an example of the stretch of the church still in this country, officially I am because they removed the method to officially leave. According to them, there is no way to ever officially leave the church. It cannot be done.
I'm not going to discuss theology with you on this topic but we all know what we do as true catholics when we feel we have something to be sorry for, if we truly do. I can't talk for 'some' countries but you either agree that the Church is not the State and the two are separated or you don't which in the Uk's case and the US that they are is the case. What the people do is down to their personal conscience regardless. Why you feel that you can demand who can and who cannot be allowed into the debate is a matter for yours. It doesn't make it so.
Any decent normal person is pro-choice.
I'm not demanding anything. That's what the church does in countries where they have influence on the state. Do you want names of countries? El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Honduras. Abortion is not permitted there under any circumstance.
This is all getting totally away from my main point. You yourself indeed are free to choose, based on how you view your faith, but the fact is that the official and very vocal position of most religions including yours is that contraception is immoral. It doesn't matter that you personally don't follow it. It's a fact and for people who fear the church, they will follow it.
Last edited:
Yeah, you said that before, and I replied before. Do we need to keep repeating what we've already said?
Fact of the matter the Bible has nothing, absolutely nothing to say on, for or against Abortion. It has one story open to interpretation that can be connected obliquely to Contraception.
All sorts of interested parties attempt to influence law making and churches amongst many too.
And it's openly interpreted by those organized religions who tell their followers officially what to do. You don't follow it, but plenty do in countries where the organized religions have more power. I've posted an example from El Salvador.
Back to my original point. The advance of sex education is held back by organized religion, and the greatest thing that could happen for the advancement of sex education would be if those religions had no influence on it. The knock on effect from that would be fewer unplanned pregnancies and the outcome that you said yourself would prefer to abortions
And plenty don't follow it. Have we said that before?
You've certainly said this before. I can't see the point myself.
Because you live in a country where you can choose not to follow it. And that country, as a direct result I would say, does not have the issues that El Salvador does where people do not have the luxury you have to not follow it.
I can imagine you think I'm picking on your religion here, but it's not just your religion. I also give the example of evangelical parts of the US where their church holds great power over its people and bans sex education.
And again. I'll leave you to get on with this point that you feel is so ultra important that you need to keep repeating it.
As demonstrated by the people and governments of Italy despite being known as a Catholic Country neither Abortion or Contraception are illegal. When El Salvador is ready perhaps the people will follow their minds. Certain States in the US are going backwards.
That will be when the church has less power there. Sorry, but it's a fact.
Good for Italy. Very good for Italy. That's despite the church though.
https://www.politico.eu/article/no-sex-education-please-were-italian/
https://gen-pol.org/2018/10/mapping-sex-and-relationship-education-sre-in-italy/
I'm not quite sure why you're fighting this so hard, when your preferred solution is more sex education instead of more abortion, and organized religions are verifiably against sex education and they have a powerful effect on that policy, as seen in Italy and Poland. There would be more sex education in schools in a world where religions didn't get to influence that policy.
And on and on. None of these points are disputed. Are all historical. However I'm not a true Christian for for being against making Abortion illegal. I confess, I had an ounce of compassion.
Yada yada yada...
Seems like we've reached the end of the line here if that's your response. Let's get back to our Sundays.
It went a bit stale when you seemed to think that repeating your point over and over when I'd already made the same point much earlier in the thread, was vital but you decided that somehow it still needed making to myself. Oh, that and the fact I cannot be a true christian in your judgement.
Church and State are supposed to be separated for a reason, some countries know why. Somehow I don't feel any less of a christian for your judgement.
It went a bit stale when you seemed to think that repeating your point over and over when I'd already made the same point much earlier in the thread, was vital but you decided that somehow it still needed making to myself. Oh, that and the fact I cannot be a true christian in your judgement.
Church and State are supposed to be separated for a reason, some countries know why. Somehow I don't feel any less of a christian for your judgement.
I never said that. I personally don't think the organized churches are very Christian themselves
I'm certain though that they believe if you want to be part of their church, you need to follow what they say. Am I wrong in that?
It's mostly guidance but we're all weak.I never said that. I personally don't think the organized churches are very Christian themselves
I'm certain though that they believe if you want to be part of their church, you need to follow what they say. Am I wrong in that?
On topic:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-education-controversy-erupts-in-omaha/
https://weldbham.com/blog/2016/07/20/the-debate-over-sex-education-in-alabama/
https://www.macon.com/news/local/education/article215972505.html
Bruce Cook is, naturally, an atheist. Oops, nope, he's an "apostolic and prophetic entrepreneur"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-education-controversy-erupts-in-omaha/
https://weldbham.com/blog/2016/07/20/the-debate-over-sex-education-in-alabama/
https://www.macon.com/news/local/education/article215972505.html
Bruce Cook is, naturally, an atheist. Oops, nope, he's an "apostolic and prophetic entrepreneur"
Last edited:
Nebraskans for Founders Values?On topic:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-education-controversy-erupts-in-omaha/
https://weldbham.com/blog/2016/07/20/the-debate-over-sex-education-in-alabama/
https://www.macon.com/news/local/education/article215972505.html
Bruce Cook is, naturally, an atheist. Oops, nope, he's an "apostolic and prophetic entrepreneur"
What Founders? Ours?
Ffs these people need to read a bit about the private lives of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc.
Alcohol abuse, growing tons of hemp and sleeping with women of African descent?
I'm down and I'm not even American.
Not to mention Franklin sleeping his way up the halls of Versailles.
Your opinion is autocratic. His is democratic. I don't respect autocratic policy, decision, or opinions. I respect democratic ones. Hope that explains why some opinions are not equal to others?
Yes, it's called being a good, compassionate, reasonable person
You believe all human life is worth saving, but you don't believe you have the right to force other people to behave the way you personally feel. Good person.These people have incredible funding and a lot of free time and enthusiasm, imagine if they actually used all that for the good of their communities instead of fecking up poor people just to feel good about themselves.
Arthur: Alabama Public Television bans gay wedding episode
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48350023
Can that state be anymore backward?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48350023
Can that state be anymore backward?
David Simon engaging in discussion over abortion in the aftermath of Alabama’s new legislation. Seems to be getting a bit fed up :
:Couple of links about abortion in general:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ant...hy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843
What a surprise, a hypocritical pro life supporter, who doesn't want the rules to apply to when he fecks up!
https://www.latimes.com/business/hi...yWokr4NSeM9VcO-fb3cXTRSY0I7qLNlb330pwbcjz85Bs
States having restrictive policies on abortion tends to correlate with them having amongst the worst rates on infant mortality and also maternal health. What a shock.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ant...hy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843
What a surprise, a hypocritical pro life supporter, who doesn't want the rules to apply to when he fecks up!
https://www.latimes.com/business/hi...yWokr4NSeM9VcO-fb3cXTRSY0I7qLNlb330pwbcjz85Bs
States having restrictive policies on abortion tends to correlate with them having amongst the worst rates on infant mortality and also maternal health. What a shock.
Stand down soldier.
My wording was poor there. What I meant was that pro life people will tend to marry others who share their view. If Dave89 holds such strong views, I'm going to go ahead and assume that his wife holds very similar views and therefore won't be getting an abortion either. They'd probably raise any kids to be exactly the same.
What I meant was if they believe life is sacred, the availability of abortion in the general population does not mean they they have to take up the option themselves. His family are more than free to take as many pregnancies to term as they wish. But that doesn't mean they should restrict others.
British society is unforunately Conservative as hell, as is our media and that helps perpetuate the above.
The current government has rolled back everything that you pointed out above. Abortion has ceased to be an electoral issue in mainland British politics but the only ones who tend to be against it are those in the party doing all of this stuff (ie JRM). As I've pointed out above, the states enforcing these abortion bans in the states are also the ones who can't be bothered to properly invest in health care. So they have unacceptably high infant mortality rates. We'll carry the baby to term but screw actually providing adequate care to the living baby right?
I don't want to insult you here but this is exactly why I was so confused when you were trying to make one person saying about financial hardship and abortion a characterisation of the pro choice position. This was frankly ridiculous and generally seems that its the people who push most for abortion restrictions that don't give that much thought to the circumstances that child/mother will go through after (if they survive at all).
I wasn't having a go at you. Sorry if that Is how it came across.
That makes no sense. To a prolife person, the concept of murder is extended to the fetus which they now see as a human being. Most human beings think murder is wrong, and that human beings should be restricted from murdering human beings. If you are pro life then the next step is logical.
If you want to go down that route, you also need to give the option of it being self-defence on the part of the woman, not murder.
Not to mention the number of pro-life people who think the death penalty is fine.
I personally don't want to go down that route.
And yes, a prolife position and the death penalty are logically inconsistent.