No, still a Priest. Episcopalian.Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.Yeah, sorry. I was more interested in getting into the priest's daughter's pants than I was interested in studying the bible in minute detail. So sue me. Which interestingly, TX can now.
If @A guy in the Chesapeakewas around you could have had that discussion, he felt pretty strongly about it. I know born and brought up vegetarians who would throw up if they came to know the cake they ate an hour ago contained egg so upbringing I guess.And any of the rest of you folks who have a strong feeling against abortion, I'd be happy to understand your rational argument against. TIA.
Wow, nailed it in one!I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
—Pastor Dave Barnhart
Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:When I hear that argument, I ask their thoughts on the death penalty.
That question usually elicits an awkward silence.
Principles are malleable.
Yeah, I get that "cafeteria Christianity" stuff. When pressed, they usually fold like a chair. It's the blanket statement in the Commandment they state (Thou shalt not kill.)Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:
Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for he is blah, blah blah...
Exodus 21:12 - “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”
and one of my favorites
Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Not a lot of grey area there, and there are probably a hundred places that talk about putting people to death in the Bible. The problem comes up when Jeebus gets involved and says crazy shit like "Turn the other cheek." You would think that JC would have had a basic understanding of the Old Testy, since it's the word of his dad, but apparently not. F'ing commie.
Edit to add: If Texas wanted to show strong Christian values, inline with the teachings of the Bible, they really should implement the death penalty for having an abortion.
In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.
How does the Texas abortion law injure federal sovereignty and interests? For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations. If you have been following the roiling national debate over qualified immunity, you have probably heard of Section 1983 since it is the law under which federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against abusive cops.
There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. What that means is that those parties impacted by the state law are entitled to seek legal recourse in federal court by filing Section 1983 lawsuits—except that the Texas law was specifically designed to block those parties from seeking that very recourse.
The Texas abortion law also runs afoul of a longstanding rule that says that states may not impose civil or criminal penalties on federal officials for carrying out their federal duties. That rule applies here because the Texas law, as the U.S. motion notes, "purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies." Likewise, the law "purports to impede the Department of Defense's implementation of its statutory obligation to provide such medical services [abortion] to service members."
Looks like Rick missed his chance to father her children.I think we should strongly consider embedding a picture of Amy Schumer in every reply to El Cucaracha. I think he has a thing for her.