Dem. vs. Rep. Views on abortion and logic

2

Replies

  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
    Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.

    I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
    Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.

    I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.

    I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.

    Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.

    I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
    Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.

    I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.

    I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.

    Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.

    I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.
    I'm an atheist. I found too much hypocrisy with religion when I wasn't even yet a teenager to be bothered with it. Mom made us go anyhow. I used the time to scope out guys I liked and daydream. But my mom was religious (Dad wasn't. He didn't have to go to church. I was jealous. LOL) and my grandparents were very religious - right down to being good friends with a Cardinal. Perhaps our churches didn't teach the same things as yours. Let's face it - this new Pope seems to have a lot of different ideals, standards, and interpretations than previous ones. I don't think that all Catholic churches are the same any more than all Muslims are the same or all Baptists are the same. Frankly, despite not being religious, I find it more than a little insulting and annoying to say that if my church differed from yours then mine must be doing it wrong.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
    Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.

    I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.

    I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.

    Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.

    I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.
    I'm an atheist. I found too much hypocrisy with religion when I wasn't even yet a teenager to be bothered with it. Mom made us go anyhow. I used the time to scope out guys I liked and daydream. But my mom was religious (Dad wasn't. He didn't have to go to church. I was jealous. LOL) and my grandparents were very religious - right down to being good friends with a Cardinal. Perhaps our churches didn't teach the same things as yours. Let's face it - this new Pope seems to have a lot of different ideals, standards, and interpretations than previous ones. I don't think that all Catholic churches are the same any more than all Muslims are the same or all Baptists are the same. Frankly, despite not being religious, I find it more than a little insulting and annoying to say that if my church differed from yours then mine must be doing it wrong.
    I didn't say anything about anyone's church doing anything "wrong." I said a vast majority of Catholics don't understand their own religion.

    And the things I'm speaking of I learned long before this Pope. I have only been in a Catholic church since he took over once and that was for my grandmother's funeral. However, my mother spent 12 years in Catholic school. my grandmother was a devout Catholic for 97 years and although I wasn't raised in the church, I did learn an awful lot about it from my family and from a brief stint in RCIA classes.

    In fact, the reason I took the RCIA classes was I was engaged to someone who was Catholic and his family was very concerned about me being a full-fledged member of the church. They were "devout," but I had several conversations with his mother where I clearly knew more about their religion than they did. I mention the Immaculate Conception because nearly everyone thinks that refers to Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus when in fact it refers to Mary's own conception and that she is the only human born without original sin. My ex's mother argued me to death and finally asked her priest, assuming he would back her up.

    Logic itself says the IC can't be about Christ because the church marks the Feast of the IC on Dec. 6 and Christ's birthday on Dec. 26. That's either a very short or a very long pregnancy ...

    I don't practice the religion, but I'm quite familiar with it. And the thing about not taking the Bible literally and about Adam and Eve not being recognized as specific people, but a parable representing the entie human race is not only taught in one Catholic church. I have heard that multiple times from multiple nuns and priests in multiple churches in multiple cities and states.

    I'm not telling you your church was wrong. I'm telling you that you perhaps were not listening or these things maybe didn't come up in your presence. And you just confirmed what I thought.
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,642 Member
    I picture God facepalming and saying, "how did you people **** this up this badly"...and then kicking himself in the nuts when it comes to organized religion.
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    I picture God facepalming and saying, "how did you people **** this up this badly"...and then kicking himself in the nuts when it comes to organized religion.
    No **** right?

    As for the previous argument - I did pay attention. I attended Sunday school every week until I was 16. I wasn't scoping out boys when I was 7 FFS. My grandparents were devout Catholics until they died at 85 and 93 yrs of age. I don't need some stranger on the internet to try to convince me that she's right about the church I grew up with. Perhaps you didn't speak with enough people. I got most of my information from a Cardinal and a Bishop (my cousin) so thank you for your opinion but that's all it is.

    You are one of the reasons people leave the church and religion in general. The whole "You're doing it wrong" attitude of superiority when the entire basis of religion is vague interpretation in the first place is just disgusting and reprehensible. Thank you for reminding me why I gave it all up so long ago. Every once in a while I consider trying again. Then I run into someone with that attitude and I remember that you aren't the exception, you are the rule. And you just confirmed that. Screw off.
  • Italian_Buju
    Italian_Buju Posts: 8,030 Member
    If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.

    Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
    Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.
    The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.

    Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.


    This is not common knowledge? :indifferent:
  • alpha2omega
    alpha2omega Posts: 229 Member
    I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).

    Edited for clarification.

    I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.



    so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?


    Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.

    Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

    After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.

    Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.

    Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
  • Italian_Buju
    Italian_Buju Posts: 8,030 Member
    I would say roughly after the first trimester......if abortion is an option for you, it needs to be done asap.....and although I believe in a woman's right to choose when she becomes a parent, I find it disturbing when a woman has several.....I remember reading once that the average woman in Russia will have about 8 abortions in her lifetime......Once the baby is able to live outside the mother, it is too late for an 'abortion'
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,454 Member
    I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    From Wikipedia: Almost all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had experience in colonial and state government. 80% had been members do the Continental Congress.

    More than 75% had legal training, although not all practiced law. Quite a few owned slaves.

    43% of the current Congress report their occupations as "lawyers".

    Yep, them forefathers were working all right -- mostly working as LAWYERS. :laugh:
  • alpha2omega
    alpha2omega Posts: 229 Member
    I don't think it's ever going to be like it was. Let's face it, our forefathers were "WORKING" leaders back in the day. Every politician now is practically raised as a lawyer.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    From Wikipedia: Almost all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had experience in colonial and state government. 80% had been members do the Continental Congress.

    More than 75% had legal training, although not all practiced law. Quite a few owned slaves.

    43% of the current Congress report their occupations as "lawyers".

    Yep, them forefathers were working all right -- mostly working as LAWYERS. :laugh:

    Per the link below, 57 members or 57% of the Senate currently hold a law degree. 169 members or 38% of the House have a law degree. These ratios also existed in 2009 when the Dems had a Democratic majority so their is no correlation between current policy decisions and educational background of Congress. They're all equally corrupt.




    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).

    Edited for clarification.

    I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.



    so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?


    Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.

    Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

    After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.

    Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.

    Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
    Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.

    For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.
  • alpha2omega
    alpha2omega Posts: 229 Member
    I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).

    Edited for clarification.

    I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.



    so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?


    Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.

    Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

    After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.

    Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.

    Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
    Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.

    For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.

    Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,611 Member
    I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).

    Edited for clarification.

    I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.



    so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?


    Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.

    Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.

    After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.

    Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.

    Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?
    Not "babies" the youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 6 days.

    For me, an abortion needs to be done ASAP. Unfortunately GOP rules are only pushing women to have later and later abortions. The "waiting period", shutting down clinics because a hallway isn't wide enough, etc. A poor woman may end up spending a lot of money just getting to a clinic twice in order to get the abortion. She may have to save up a few weeks to pay for that.

    Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:

    I know someone who was both on the pill and used condoms and ended up pregnant.....sometimes, to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, nature finds a way.
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    Yea poor woman. It's unfortunate a malady, such as pregnancy, is not preventable. :huh:

    I know someone who was both on the pill and used condoms and ended up pregnant.....sometimes, to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, nature finds a way.

    Cue the insipid "Well then don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant" comments. As if married women don't have sex. Abstinence is the only method that is 100% effective. It's also unrealistic.
  • ShinyFuture
    ShinyFuture Posts: 314 Member
    What I don't understand is why, when they are so vehemently against abortion, are they also so determined to prevent access to birth control - or even education about birth control. It does seem to me to be an attempt to keep the women folk under control.

    And fwiw, the whole 'most Catholics know' about Adam/Eve - add me to the list of those who never heard that before either - and I come from very Catholic family (parents did 12 yrs of Catholic school, I did 8, have a relative who is a nun, have another relative who did seminary school until it just made so little sense logically that he actually became an atheist.)
  • TheRoadDog
    TheRoadDog Posts: 11,793 Member
    I think, in most cases, it is a personal decision.

    Politics and Religion should mind their own business and stay out of it.
  • wolf23
    wolf23 Posts: 4,122 Member
    edited July 2015
    _John_ wrote: »
    Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.

    If there was any way the Dems could get a fetus to the polls and vote, they would change their stance.