• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”

That's about as strong a statement as you can get about the unborn being a valued person.
Click to expand...

Ambiguous. It doesn't say serious injury to the fetus. Also, when you quote the Bible, give the book, chapter, and verse.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”

That's about as strong a statement as you can get about the unborn being a valued person.
Click to expand...

For the death or miscarriage of the fetus there is a fine. For injury to the born woman it is a tooth for a tooth hand for hand etc.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
Yes, of course.
Click to expand...

That is your belief.
Not mine.

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

A Matter of Faith, Conscience and Justice

There are as many viewpoints and beliefs about issues having to do with our reproductive lives as there are denominations, clergy, and faith leaders. One thing you should know is that there is broad consensus that the moral agency of human beings – especially that of a woman when making decisions about her reproductive life – is God-given. One narrow, religious viewpoint is not representative of what most Americans believe.

We believe that decisions about our reproductive lives (such as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy) should be left to the person, in consultation with their loved ones, trusted medical professionals, and their faith.

Faith traditions such as the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative Judaism support reproductive choice as the most responsible position a religious institution can take on this issue. In fact, all have official statements in support of reproductive choice as a matter of conscience, adopted by their governing bodies. Together, these religions represent over 20 million Americans. Religious and religiously-affiliated organizations from these and other traditions, as well as independent religious organizations such as Catholics for Choice, are also doing incredible work to combat the notion that all religious people or institutions are always anti-abortion.
Click to expand...



Faith Perspectives – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
It's common sense natural law.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true.

First, it's not common sense to sacrifice a woman already contributing to society (her health, her participation in society, her life) to protect the unborn which may not even survive to be born (25% are miscarried, or they may be born defective)

Second, since you bring up nature, nature always favors the female that is already capable of reproduction. Adults have a much higher chance of survival and she can live to reproduce another day. Juveniles have a much lower survival rate in nature. In times of stress, shortage of food or other resources, etc, the mother will eat her young, naturally abort, etc etc. (That's all from my first Bachelor of Science).

Third, there are no such things as 'natural rights.' Rights are a man-made concept, period. For someone like you, who knows you cant use religion for your argument, 'natural rights' are an end-run around that...but they are still an appeal to a higher authority.

But...where is the scientific research on 'natural rights?' If human animals have them, why dont other animals?

Sorry, 'natural rights' is just another philosophical belief. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not any kind of biological 'fact.'

So...basically your answer is "God," right?
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”

That's about as strong a statement as you can get about the unborn being a valued person.
Click to expand...
SOunds like a fine for a miscarriage.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”

That's about as strong a statement as you can get about the unborn being a valued person.
Click to expand...

And since it says absolutely nothing about the unborn being hurt or terminated in the slightest apparently the Bible says literally nothing about abortion
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Bodhisattva said:
And since it says absolutely nothing about the unborn being hurt or terminated in the slightest apparently the Bible says literally nothing about abortion
Click to expand...

I mean....I just pasted one. lol.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
I mean....I just pasted one. lol.
Click to expand...

And my pro choice Protestant Church and I disagree with your interpretation of that verse.


If the woman loses the fruit of her womb it is only worth a fine.

Here is a snip from a 1968 Christianity Today article:
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary,explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
Click to expand...

My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

For thousands of years the overwhelming majority of the Bible’s past interpreters did not read the Bible that way.

From the following:

Why does it matter that what evangelical leaders say is “the biblical view on abortion” was not a widespread interpretation until about 30 years ago? For one thing, it’s harder to argue the Bible clearly teaches something when the overwhelming majority of its past interpreters didn’t read the Bible that way. For another, it illustrates that evangelical leaders are happy to defend creative reinterpretations of the Bible when it fits with a socially conservative worldview — even while objecting to new interpretations of the Bible on, say, homosexuality, precisely because they are new. And for another, by looking at the history of how today’s “biblical view on abortion” arose, one can begin to see the worldview that made it possible. In the process, it becomes apparent it is that unacknowledged worldview, and not the Bible, that evangelical opponents of abortion are actually defending.
Click to expand...

How Evangelicals Decided That Life Begins at Conception | HuffPost
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Lursa said:
See the bold. And that is why my first post (post 2) addressed what I see as a clear disconnect among such men. Those pro-life males are acting against their own best interests because it then opens them up to something they find even more offensive...being held partially responsible for the children they didnt plan on producing. :doh

How have they not figured that out? What is keeping them from acting more in their own best interests and acknowledging the need for elective abortion? (I wont bother going into the fact that it would be nice if they actually respected women and our rights.)
Click to expand...

Well they will never respect women for one obvious reason, in their deluded minds (of some men) they think they are better than women. They think men are a superior kind of people and women should shut up and obey them.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

minnie616 said:
And my pro choice Protestant Church and I disagree with your interpretation of that verse.


If the woman loses the fruit of her womb it is only worth a fine.

Here is a snip from a 1968 Christianity Today article:


My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

For thousands of years the overwhelming majority of the Bible’s past interpreters did not read the Bible that way.

From the following:

How Evangelicals Decided That Life Begins at Conception | HuffPost
Click to expand...

"pro-choice church".....And you wonder why your church is dying out. People don't like wishy-washy that changes with public opinion. People want the rock-solid unchanging truth. That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
I mean....I just pasted one. lol.
Click to expand...

You haven't pasted anything from the Bible prohibiting women from terminating their pregnancies.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Gallup has previously reported that church attendance has dropped more among Catholics than among Protestants. Consistent with this, the decline in church membership has been greater among Catholics. Twenty years ago, 76% of Catholics belonged to a church; now, 63% do.

U.S. Church Membership Down Sharply in Past Two Decades
Click to expand...
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"pro-choice church".....And you wonder why your church is dying out. People don't like wishy-washy that changes with public opinion. People want the rock-solid unchanging truth. That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
Click to expand...

No, some people want the false security of believing there is such a thing in life so they can turn their lives and responsibility for their decisions over to that.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Scorps2000 said:
It's not about the taxpayer, it's about the man and the woman. Why are you changing the subject? :roll:
Click to expand...

No, if a baby is born it is about supporting the baby. And the taxpayer should not be involved unless both parents have been tapped to contribute.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

OrphanSlug said:
Not really what I was trying to do, but I get why you went there. What I was really trying to talk about is perception, and perhaps I should have better phrased it to say political perception of the opposition. There is no doubt that the nature of the debate is polarizing.

For the pro-choice group, the argument is the pro-life group is all about controlling women.

For the pro-life group, the argument is the pro-choice group stands for murder out of convenience.

Equivalency is not the point, perception of the basis for the argument out of opposition is.

I am not denying that you, me, or anyone else has an opinion in the abortion debate. But to the point of this thread there is a perception that the anti-abortion movement is about misogyny and not saving a life (the OP article and opinion.) Someone from the pro-life side of the debate saying that is not the case does not necessarily remove that perception. Well, that cuts both ways and that is what I was getting at.
Click to expand...



“Equivalency is not the point, perception of the basis for the argument out of opposition is.”

Equivalency is not YOUR point. But posing the situation to make your point as though they were equivalent, whether purposely or not, IS the presentation you gave and thus lends itself to the greater likelihood of perception that the two are equivalent. They’re not. As the law is now, those who deny a woman’s rights do not suffer whatsoever. Given a law that sentences women who have and doctors who perform abortions as murder, they suffer a little bit more. Or, do you say I do not accurately portray the situation as you presented, purposely or not, nor is punishment as I described is or would be?

Nonetheless, I get your point.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"pro-choice church".....And you wonder why your church is dying out. People don't like wishy-washy that changes with public opinion. People want the rock-solid unchanging truth. That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
Click to expand...

I am curious, where do you live that the Catholic Church continues to grow.

From this article, the only thing that helps keep the Catholic membership up in the US is the immigrant population that frequently is Catholic.

Pew survey: Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"pro-choice church".....And you wonder why your church is dying out. People don't like wishy-washy that changes with public opinion. People want the rock-solid unchanging truth. That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
Click to expand...

Sorry , you seem to know next to nothing nothing about my Church or the Member Churches and Religious groups in the RCRC.

You seem very intolerant of any religion that is not Catholic.



Ever heard of Catholics For Choice?
(They are a religious pro choice group who are a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. )

In fact about 28% of women who abort are Catholic.


Here is a <SNIP> written by a Pro choice Catholic:
<SNIP>

Finally, I am a prochoice Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be.
The Catechism reads, “[Conscience] is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary.

There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be better to be excommunicated than to neglect your individual conscience. So really, I am just following his lead. After years of research, discernment and prayer, my conscience has been well informed.

Being a prochoice Catholic does not contradict my faith; rather, in following my well-informed conscience, I am adhering to the central tenet of Catholic teaching -- the primacy of conscience.

My hope is that together the hierarchy of the Catholic church, the antiabortion movement and the prochoice movement will help people of all faiths and no faith to develop well-informed consciences.

However, this can only be done by talking about the whole picture -- from the dangers of unsafe abortion to the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy.
By narrowing our focus to the legalization/illegalization of abortion, we are ignoring the realities which women and families face around the world. And that’s not serving anyone.

I think groups like RCRC and CFFC are really important resources. Until I found out about them, I had my opinions that differed from my church, but I didn't know of Bible passages I could refer to that affirmed my point of view. ]The discussions I've been able to attend at Choice USA GSLIs (Gloria Steinem Leadership Institutes) have been very important to me.

Before, I didn't realize that the position of the Catholic Church on abortion is not canon law: as a Catholic, it's completely within my rights to disagree with the church's position on that issue, and several Catholic theologians do.
Religious pro-choice groups are incredible sources that helped me reconcile whatever struggle I had between my faith and my pro-choice views.
Click to expand...


Catherine's Story
 
Last edited:
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

minnie616 said:
Sorry , you know next to nothing nothing about my Church or the Member Churches and Religious groups in the RCRC.

You seem very intolerant of any religion that is not Catholic.

One of the religions groups who are members of the RCRC are Catholics for Choice.
Click to expand...

He seems intolerant of personal liberty, period.

This is why we can be grateful for the Constitution.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

year2late said:
I am curious, where do you live that the Catholic Church continues to grow.

From this article, the only thing that helps keep the Catholic membership up in the US is the immigrant population that frequently is Catholic.

Pew survey: Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination
Click to expand...

Declining percentage does not mean declining membership, genius. lol. But worldwide, membership is holding steady

See the Change in Catholic Population Around the World | TIME Labs
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
"pro-choice church".....And you wonder why your church is dying out. People don't like wishy-washy that changes with public opinion. People want the rock-solid unchanging truth. That's why the Catholic Church membership continues to grow.
Click to expand...
Yea those who support sexual abuse abound.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
Declining percentage does not mean declining membership, genius. lol. But worldwide, membership is holding steady

See the Change in Catholic Population Around the World | TIME Labs
Click to expand...

So if it is so all fired better than other religions as you profess, why are they leaving the Catholic Church at an alaming rate? Why does the US need the influx of immigrants to keep the numbers of Catholics in the US up?
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Mashmont said:
I mean....I just pasted one. lol.
Click to expand...

It talked about injury... to the mother. It said nothing about the unborn.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

Bodhisattva said:
The man pays for the woman's decision to have the child... if there is no child then there is not support. The woman can walk away from supporting the child but the man can not walk away from supporting the child. That puts that squarely in the woman's favor.



That is almost 100% a myth. Women make the same money as men do for almost every single job that there is. Teachers. Cops. Supermarket employees... etc. There are some jobs that they may not but almost every single time there are factors that might mean that she makes less... and a huge factor in that myth is that women generally work more part time jobs, start careers later and take huge breaks in being a mother.



That is a valid economic business concern...



It is not a woman's world. Women simply are not victims any more than men that have to deal with sexist cops or judges more are victims.

It is just how society is.
Click to expand...
The man “pays” for his decision to have sex. He knows the consequences and should each and every time use protection no matter what the woman is using to minimize his exposure.
 
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

minnie616 said:
Sorry , you seem to know next to nothing nothing about my Church or the Member Churches and Religious groups in the RCRC.

You seem very intolerant of any religion that is not Catholic.
Click to expand...

Not the least bit intolerant. I WANT people going to church, even to protestant churches. But I don't like that some denominations have sold their soul to the PC left. That's turning people off



Ever heard of Catholics For Choice?
(They are a religious pro choice group who are a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. )
Click to expand...
OMG. You're falling for this ruse hook, line, and sinker. "Catholics for Choice" is another phony Soros-financed front group. It was formed to confuse Catholics and others on the true position of the church on abortion. The Vatican has openly and publicly condemned Catholics for Choice. Remember this about the Marxists who fund Catholics for Choice and RCRC. Their goal is the DESTRUCTION of the church. Christianity is the biggest obstacle of Marxists. In every regime, that's been the case.

In fact about 28% of women who abort are Catholic.
Click to expand...
28% might check a box when asked on a form what religion they are, but practicing Catholics, as measured by those who attend weekly Mass are NOT having those abortions.


Here is a <SNIP> written by a Pro choice Catholic:
<SNIP>




Catherine's Story[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Re: Misogyny not saving "babies" is the force behind the anti-abortion movement says a new poll

One good way for a man to limit his exposure is to live in Texas. Only the first $9,200 per month is considered for child support: 20% for one child, a total of 25% for two children. That means a maximum of $2,300 per month total for two children and even less if you make less than $9,200 per month. Texas generally doesn't award INVOLUNTARY alimony.

year2late said:
The man “pays” for his decision to have sex. He knows the consequences and should each and every time use protection no matter what the woman is using to minimize his exposure.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom