Notes From The Didache On The Early Christian View Of Abortion

[Gordy327]

Here in the US, the abortion issue isnt about people "liking" abortion, it's about what's best...for women, society, and even children.

The Supreme Court and the 2024 election decided the matter. It's a decision for the states, and many states don't agree with you, they think morality counts and have already acted on it.

And women now suffer because of it. Where's the so called "morality" in that?

 

[CLAX1911]

I'll let you know when I give it. For now, I'll stick to facts.

I know when you give it you just pretend that it's fact it let's call the arrogance.

Dobbs effeectively Invalidated the viability standard by putting abortion in the hands of the states.

Does the Constitution states it should be

The states themselves may maintain that standard on their own accord or they may not.

The way it's supposed to work

No, they're simply more irrational and not interested in compromise, as I've already said!

Yeah everyone that doesn't agree with your political opinions is irrational I've heard you make that argument and only that argument. Is that all you have everyone but me is stupid?

They're arrogant and sanctimonious enough to involve themselves in other peoples lives or decisions when it's really none of their business or concern at ll.

You know who else says this people who like to molest children. Does it sanctimonious for us to confront child predators and get all into their personal life?

And now the states will be challenged again. History repeats.

And we'll see how that goes.

No, still fact. The Constitution enumerates and establishes our rights. That is just a legal fact.

And not once anywhere in the entire Constitution does it say you have the right to an abortion. And writes not enumerated in the Constitution are left up to the states

I'd bet it plays a part.

To some degree perhaps

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course, they do. They support time limit restrictions.

But why it's just a stupid parasite you shouldn't be allowed to live?

See the following collection of results of abortion polls and scroll down to find Gallup, a conservative polling organization. In their results, scrolled down, you can find the poll that separates support by the first three months, etc. About 67% support abortion in the first three months.

So it's 3 months and one day it starts being a stupid parasite. Why didn't burst out of the body and start living on its own?

Abortion

Answered above.

In a very inconsistent way with other things you said.

Trump won a plurality, not a majority, of the popular vote, sort of like Bill Clinton.
Some judges are elected. Moreover, we expect judges to know more about the law and how to follow it than presidents, who should follow SC rulings, and that goes double for unanimous rulings.

A returning Roe v Wade was not a presidential order

This is what conservatives say when they disagree with you. Our country is more than a constitutional republic. It is a constitutional democratic republic. Democratic modifies republic, and constitutional modifies democratic republic.

No it's absolutely not a Democratic Republic of any sort. The supreme law is strictly the Constitution not the majority. It never was you don't know what a Democratic Republic is if you think that this country is one.

Representatives are supposed to represent people in their districts. Senators are supposed to represent people in their states. Governors are supposed to represent people in their states, and the President is supposed to represent people in all the districts and states.

Yes and they must submit to the supreme law of the Constitution. That's why democratically electing people that must submit to the supreme law means that this country is not in any shape or form a Democratic Republic

Take for instance same-sex marriage if it was a Democratic Republic we still wouldn't be allowed to have that because it was a court ruling based on a constitution not popular vote. The supreme Court raised its middle finger to the majority because they don't matter it's not a Democratic Republic of any sort and went ahead and made the ruling and the states must obey.

That's why we're not a Democratic Republic.

And judges are supposed to represent the principles of their state and federal constitutions.

So where is the majority rule in that nowhere at all that's what I thought so you're mistaken when you say anything but a constitutional republic

The Republican state legislatures in some red states have actually tried to get around their state constitutions to make laws that violate principles in those constitutions that they don't like. It's disgusting.

But yet you want to pretend that someone who's elected has authority to do this in the sense of a Democratic Republic

So we disagree. Big woo. But many things are responsible for it, and the fact that many young people think that many older church members are hypocrites or support values they think un-Christian is not a surprise.

I don't think it's that. I think this is what people tell themselves.

 

[Lursa]

Here in the US, the abortion issue isnt about people "liking" abortion, it's about what's best...for women, society, and even children.

The Supreme Court and the 2024 election decided the matter. It's a decision for the states, and many states don't agree with you, they think morality counts and have already acted on it.

You didnt dispute anything I said and you discussed law...not morality. Dobbs did leave the law up to the states and enables states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn without due process and almost all of them do allow it. And with every state that allows its residents to vote on it, with only 1 exception, all have voted for fewer restrictions.

So society is going with its moral compass and valuing women and our lives. That is how the trend has been. Abortion had been going down every year before Dobbs...it's actually started climbing again since it passed. I'm good with that progress, which was based on women being in better socio-economic positions and not needing abortions. They still had choice tho...and when some states tried to take it away...we've seen "panic abortions" where women have them early because they're afraid they'll lose their chance. Or, they drive where they can.

 

[weaver2]

I am who gets to say what is moral and immoral. If you want to challenge me on it, go ahead, shake your fist at the clouds.

How can you be so sure you are right? How is it moral to make a family suffer from deeper poverty ? How is it moral to saddle a new child with the certainty of future poverty. What's moral about harming an entire family with the chaos and anxiety from an unplanned child they know they know they cannot care for. Is it moral to insist on a birth that will mean the woman, the bread winner of the family will lose her job. How is causing homelessness moral. Why is morality more important than living intelligently and protecting the already living family against harm?

 

[Lursa]

How can you be so sure you are right? How is it moral to make a family suffer from deeper poverty ? How is it moral to saddle a new child with the certainty of future poverty. What's moral about harming an entire family with the chaos and anxiety from an unplanned child they know they know they cannot care for. Is it moral to insist on a birth that will mean the woman, the bread winner of the family will lose her job. How is causing homelessness moral. Why is morality more important than living intelligently and protecting the already living family against harm?

I didnt see him make any moral argument at all. Just a personal "declaration." That's usually a sign of an emotionally-derived opinion.

 

[Ganondagan]

And women now suffer because of it. Where's the so called "morality" in that?

I didn't say it was moral. I said the regulations belong with the state not the federal government. For me it's immoral...period.

 

[Ganondagan]

You didnt dispute anything I said and you discussed law...not morality. Dobbs did leave the law up to the states and enables states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn without due process and almost all of them do allow it. And with every state that allows its residents to vote on it, with only 1 exception, all have voted for fewer restrictions.

So society is going with its moral compass and valuing women and our lives. That is how the trend has been. Abortion had been going down every year before Dobbs...it's actually started climbing again since it passed. I'm good with that progress, which was based on women being in better socio-economic positions and not needing abortions. They still had choice tho...and when some states tried to take it away...we've seen "panic abortions" where women have them early because they're afraid they'll lose their chance. Or, they drive where they can.

I don't care. If there is no issue of danger to either the mother or the human life in the womb then it's immoral.

 

[Gordy327]

I didn't say it was moral.

So you agree states making women suffer via abortion restrictions is immoral? Good.

I said the regulations belong with the state not the federal government.

And women are suffering for it too.

For me it's immoral...period.

Then don't have an abortion. Problem solved.

I don't care. If there is no issue of danger to either the mother or the human life in the womb then it's immoral.

Pregnancy by its very nature is a danger to either or both. Explain why it's immoral.

 

[Ganondagan]

How can you be so sure you are right? How is it moral to make a family suffer from deeper poverty ? How is it moral to saddle a new child with the certainty of future poverty. What's moral about harming an entire family with the chaos and anxiety from an unplanned child they know they know they cannot care for. Is it moral to insist on a birth that will mean the woman, the bread winner of the family will lose her job. How is causing homelessness moral. Why is morality more important than living intelligently and protecting the already living family against harm?

I'm sorry if the family is inconvienced by the child. Life's a b*tch, get over it.

 

[Ganondagan]

So you agree states making women suffer via abortion restrictions is immoral? Good.

Nope, didn't say that at all.

And women are suffering for it too.

Then don't have an abortion. Problem solved.

Pregnancy by its very nature is a danger to either or both. Explain why it's immoral.

Because it's a deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

 

[Ganondagan]

I didnt see him make any moral argument at all. Just a personal "declaration." That's usually a sign of an emotionally-derived opinion.

Perhaps to you. But then, I don't expect much from you in any event.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope, didn't say that at all.

You didn't say it was moral. Therefore it's immoral. You are the self proclaimed arbiter of morality after all.

Because it's a deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

So? How does that explain anything? What's it "innocent" of exactly? Besides, since it's a danger, then according to you, abortion is moral.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps to you. But then, I don't expect much from you in any event.

Well you have nothing but that and you couldnt dispute/argue a single thing in my post where I explained mine, politely.

So your post is just a concession to your feeilngs and realization you dont have a valid moral argument. That wasnt even a complete argument from me but since most pro-choice people dont present more than their feelings or beliefs on this, it doesnt really pay to waste the time.

 

[Gordy327]

I'm sorry if the family is inconvienced by the child. Life's a b*tch, get over it.

Fortunately, abortion can take some of the bitchiness out of life. But it's clear you don't care about a family's circumstances, even if it leads to more hardship. That doesn't sound very "moral" to me.

 

[Gordy327]

Well you have nothing but that and you couldnt dispute/argue a single thing in my post where I explained mine, politely.

So your post is just a concession to your feeilngs and realization you dont have a valid moral argument. That wasnt even a complete argument from me but since most pro-choice people dont present more than their feelings or beliefs on this, it doesnt really pay to waste the time.

Feelings is all pro lifers seem to have on the issue. No logic, no rationality, no consideration for anything outside their tiny box.

 

[Lursa]

Fortunately, abortion can take some of the bitchiness out of life. But it's clear you don't care about a family's circumstances, even if it leads to more hardship. That doesn't sound very "moral" to me.

The position of many anti-abortionists is the base, ignoble goal of "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." That just reduces both to numbers, physiological functions....it dehumanizes both. @Ganondagan this is your position, right?

It doesnt matter that she loses kidney function or is likely to have a stroke, if the unborn will be born with non-functional lungs and be condemned to a ventilator for weeks, or life, or is severely defective, must be permanently medicated for pain until it expires anyway, etc.

To take the decision from the woman and her doctor is the opposite from moral, as are the desires of people who want to impose their will on others. It's not about God...God will take care of things His Way...it's arrogant to usurp that. If the woman believed, it would be up to her to follow His Guidance...not have strangers impose themselves on her life.

I value quality of life over quantity.

 

[Ganondagan]

Fortunately, abortion can take some of the bitchiness out of life. But it's clear you don't care about a family's circumstances, even if it leads to more hardship. That doesn't sound very "moral" to me.

Do you think killing a innocent human life is moral because it makes the mother's life easier? How about killing a new born, or a 6 month old, or a 1 year old? I'm sure killing them would make the mother's life easier as well. All of that could be reality if convenience of the mother's life is the criteria for abortion laws. It's the woman's choice after all.

 

[Ganondagan]

The position of many anti-abortionists is the base, ignoble goal of "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." That just reduces both to numbers, physiological functions....it dehumanizes both. @Ganondagan this is your position, right?

It doesnt matter that she loses kidney function or is likely to have a stroke, if the unborn will be born with non-functional lungs and be condemned to a ventilator for weeks, or life, or is severely defective, must be permanently medicated for pain until it expires anyway, etc.

To take the decision from the woman and her doctor is the opposite from moral, as are the desires of people who want to impose their will on others. It's not about God...God will take care of things His Way...it's arrogant to usurp that. If the woman believed, it would be up to her to follow His Guidance...not have strangers impose themselves on her life.

I value quality of life over quantity.

You certain don't value the human life in the womb.

 

[Gordy327]

Do you think killing a innocent human life is moral because it makes the mother's life easier?

its not my decision and im not the one invoking morality. I already said i have no moral qualms about abortion. Neither have you explained what the unborn is "innocent" of.

How about killing a new born, or a 6 month old, or a 1 year old? I'm sure killing them would make the mother's life easier as well.

Ask the mother. But then, that's generally not happening either.

All of that could be reality if convenience of the mother's life is the criteria for abortion laws. It's the woman's choice after all.

Yes, her choice as it should be and abortion is the easiest, safest, and cheapest means. Pregnancy itself is not a convenience. Neither is there any rational or legal reason to restrict abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

You certain don't value the human life in the womb.

What's it's value?

 

[Ganondagan]

its not my decision and im not the one invoking morality. I already said i have no moral qualms about abortion. Neither have you explained what the unborn is "innocent" of.

Ask the mother. But then, that's generally not happening either.

Yes, her choice as it should be and abortion is the easiest, safest, and cheapest means. Pregnancy itself is not a convenience. Neither is there any rational or legal reason to restrict abortion.

Safest? Someone dies everytime an abortion is performed. Doesn't sound safe to me.

 

[Ganondagan]

What's it's value?

What's the value of the mother's life? Each has the same value.

 

[Gordy327]

Safest? Someone dies everytime an abortion is performed. Doesn't sound safe to me.

Someone? Who? The only person in an abortion is the woman. And her health is threatened by pregnancy itself. Abortion is certainly safer and easier than gestation and birth.

 

[Gordy327]

What's the value of the mother's life? Each has the same value.

That doesn't explain the value. That's just an empty assertion. What's the value?