It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Shadowphile
 





It is afterall their church


Their church?! I thought it was God's church.


Yes but is god physically present to uphold the rules and give pelosi a call about it or are his servants?

You choose




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Plugin
 



Originally posted by Plugin

In the Old Testament, Numbers, Chapter 5 instructs priests on abortion in the case of a jealous husband, believing, without proof, that his wife has cheated on him.



What place is that?


Simply put, the following of Old Testament, Mosaic law is no longer required as Jesus fulfilled it. Unfortunately the confusion about the fulfillment of Old Testament, Mosaic laws leads to many misunderstandings about the Bible & modern day Christians.

I am of the opinion the CC should start excommunicating public officials who publicly advocate sinful behavior and/or actions or who perpetuate scandal. I feel it's their duty to do so. Advocation of the destruction of innocent life, ie abortion, fly's in the face of biblical teaching.


edit on 26-6-2013 by Lanisius because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2013 by Lanisius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by StoutBroux
 


Stout,

Father Pavone is a holy man, fearless too.

Pelosi has been called on her anti-Catholic beliefs by the bishop of her diocese. Way back when...

www.pewsitter.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Sorry, but I'm more and more confused.


"The Church" isn't a club. It isn't a body of men, it's the body of Christ. Only Christ decides who is and who is not a member of HIS CHURCH. That is the faith.
Then why does Pelosi call herself a Catholic? Why not just "a member of "The Church," or "The Body of Christ?" She wants to be associated with Catholicsm, and at the same time, rejects it.

Besides, Christ and "HIS CHURCH?" Remember, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church?" Do you also remember Peter got the keys to the kingdom with the power to bind and loose? Sure, it's Christ's Church, but He handed over management responsibilities ("Feed My Sheep") to Peter. Good move or bad move, that's not for us to decide. Jesus did it, and I figure He knew what He was doing.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 
reply to post by charles1952
 


Do all Catholics that disagree with certain doctrine of the church, for example, their position on condoms, risk ex-communication? Is the Church more concerned with papal opinions and decrees than with the words of Jesus and the salvation of their members? I mean, if a Catholic believes the only way to salvation is through Jesus' church and believes in the trinity, the virgin birth, the sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection, but disagree with the church's position on condoms and openly and freely distributes them, should that person be ex-communicated, and therefore destined to hell?

Isn't that attitude the same as the one that Jesus encountered when he was presented with the adulteress? Who should cast the first stone, and ex-communicate Nancy Pelosi for her position of a woman's right to choice? Will they then ex-communicate the doctors that preform abortions, their nurses? What about the doctors that distribute birth control? Ex-communicate them too, I suppose.

There are movements, within the church itself, that are demanding changes in church doctrine regarding female clergy, gay marriage and the lifting of the ban on birth control. I'm pretty sure that Ms Pelosi would align with and support these women.


Sister Pat Farrell, the departing president of the nuns’ group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, said at a news conference that the members of her organization wanted to be “recognized as equal in the church,” to have their style of religious life “respected and affirmed,” and to help create a climate in which everyone in the church can talk about “issues that are very complicated.”

---------------------

The Vatican accused the group of promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith” and “corporate dissent” against church teachings, like those prohibiting the ordination of women to the priesthood, same-sex relationships and artificial birth control.
www.nytimes.com...


Nuns reject Vatican charges of radical feminism



The Catholic Church needs to embrace change.


Really? The church views abortion as murder. Being against murder is one of the church's stronger stances. Nancy Pelosi is advocating murder. So you are saying the church "just" needs to embrace murder because a bunch of libs are okay with killing babies?

Not particularly a big fan of churches, nor do I care about abortion, but to deny this donkey witch is trying to lie and say she is of a particular religion when she doesnt even believe in the fundamental principals is gross. Shes lying for votes, nothing new, the church is just calling her on it.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanisius
I am of the opinion the CC should start excommunicating public officials who publicly advocate sinful behavior and/or actions or who perpetuate scandal. I feel it's their duty to do so.


So they can divert attention from the pedophile priests in the church of Rome....



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Lanisius
I am of the opinion the CC should start excommunicating public officials who publicly advocate sinful behavior and/or actions or who perpetuate scandal. I feel it's their duty to do so.


So they can divert attention from the pedophile priests in the church of Rome....


So, every Roman Catholic priest is a pedophile? First, you have it wrong, libs and and disbelievers, anti-Catholics call the priest scandal pedophile because they support the abominable act of sodomy. They cannot call the scandal what it really was, HOMOSEXUAL. Second, only a small percentage of priests were accused, what of the rest?

Christ established the priesthood, this is the reason Satan attacks Our Lord's consecrate ones. Satan believes in the holiness of the priesthood.

God bless you,


colbe



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
So, every Roman Catholic priest is a pedophile?


Where did I say that?


They cannot call the scandal what it really was, HOMOSEXUAL.


Except for the fact that it was not ALL homosexual, however it was ALL pedophilia...


Christ established the priesthood,


Not the church of Rome.... and he would hate what priests have done to children, and he would hate how others covered it up, even moving priests to different areas so they would have fresh children to molest.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by colbe
So, every Roman Catholic priest is a pedophile?


Where did I say that?


They cannot call the scandal what it really was, HOMOSEXUAL.


Except for the fact that it was not ALL homosexual, however it was ALL pedophilia...


Christ established the priesthood,


Not the church of Rome.... and he would hate what priests have done to children, and he would hate how others covered it up, even moving priests to different areas so they would have fresh children to molest.


Wrongo, you aren't privy to the testimony just biased by the pro-sodomite times and always, persecution of
Christ's Church.

To know history is to cease to be Protestant. The Apostles were the first priests, so was Paul. Peter, leader
of the Apostles became leader of Christ's Church. It wasn't "children" or girls, it was pubescent adolescents.
There are sexual scandals in every walk of life, that includes Protestant ministers. Speak up about them
and their adultery, a sexual sin.

Similar to professionals finally figuring out sex offenders do no change. The bishops did not know what to
do with priests involved in the scandal. They believed moving them was the answer, they were wrong.

1% of the priests were accused, so are they all guilty and what of the rest? No reply to my question so I
ask again.


colbe



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


hellobruce,

So sorry, I left off a word:

It wasn't "children" or girls, it was pubescent adolescent BOYS.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Liberals would love to revoke the Catholic Churches right to have the free choice over their rules (I guess liberals are not "pro-choice" when it comes to stuff they disagree with), but its still a free nation where Catholics can rule their Church as they see fit.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Right. Hippocrates didn't use poison laced tampons because they had shown to be fatal to his patients and he didn't believe in fatal medicine or euthanasia. Women were still getting abortions from midwives.

As far as the other "debates" on childbearing and abortion, their motives were mostly based on using women as baby makers to supply their armies. Other reasons were strictly misogynous.

Nobody in those days was concerned about the personage of a fetus or the consent of women and what they needed and wanted. Women were not free to say no to men. Any moral objection to abortion was based on the subjugation of women, and it still is today.



edit on 25-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Ah, I see the agenda now.

Sure, some protests were because they needed more citizens for the state, but also you completely disregard those passages where the objections were based on an humanist approach and the concept that human life had value. This is consistent with the various Greek philosophers.

Thus far, you have asserted that ant-abortion debate is a modern, Christian one and I have proven that this is not true. Now you change the parameters to that any disagreement on abortion was due to misogyny and subjugation of women and I've proven that is not true.

However, I do now see the propaganda and talking point laden agenda, and now know where you are coming from.

It is just as stupid and ignorant for a pro-abortion person to claim that the pro-life's position is based on subjugation of women as it is for a pro-life person to claim that a pro-abortion person's agenda is based on a love of killing babies. Both positions are incorrect, biased, unfounded, and idiotic.

Cutting away the bias and propaganda, here's the truth:

Pro-abortion people are not that way because they get off on killing babies. Pro abortion people are about individual autonomy and the ability of the individual to choose what they do or do not do with their own bodies. They don't really consider the fetus human. For them, again, it is not about killing babies but rather the autonomy of the individual.

Pro-life people are not that way because they "want to subjugate women." In fact, many people in the pro-life movement ARE women themselves. They come from the standpoint that the fetus is an innocent human being and, as such, deserves the same protections and rights as any other human being. The believe that taking the life of an innocent child is murder, regardless if it is done pre or post birth. For them, again, it is not about subjugating women (or anyone for that matter) but rather protecting the life of an innocent when he/she cannot protect themselves.

Both sides have some compelling arguments. Neither side is the monster or subjugator or murderous baby-killer that fanatics on both sides often claim.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Liberals would love to revoke the Catholic Churches right to have the free choice over their rules (I guess liberals are not "pro-choice" when it comes to stuff they disagree with), but its still a free nation where Catholics can rule their Church as they see fit.


Well that's a given.
Pro-choice to have an abortion but not to choose to own an Ar-15, smoke, use fossil fuels, eat meat, drink a soda above 16 ounces, own a handgun, hunt, chop down a tree, wear fur, etc.

That's why I think the term "pro-choice" is a bit problematic--because the people who use that term, absent libertarians, tend to have a whole list of choices they think people shouldn't make.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword
 

Do you not understand the difference between the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation?


One compliments the other. There is no logical reason to supposed that if the soul pre-exists, it couldn't enter and reenter this earthly plain again and again.

But we don't believe that the soul pre-exists.




appear to have been fabricated.



No.

There is nothing in there that refers to "past lives", which is what was fabricated. It's all about the pre-existence of the soul, which no one disputes Origen believed, and which no one, no one without an agenda, that is, claims was a teaching of the orthodox church.

In addition, I don't know why you think that if "Jesus didn't believe the unborn to be innocent souls" that somehow means that he would be in favour of the murder of unborn children.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Ah, I see the agenda now.

Sure, some protests were because they needed more citizens for the state, but also you completely disregard those passages where the objections were based on an humanist approach and the concept that human life had value. This is consistent with the various Greek philosophers.


No is isn't.


Thus far, you have asserted that ant-abortion debate is a modern,


No I haven't. That's why I took the argument back to the times of Jesus, when abortion was legal, yet, Jesus never condemned it. I pointed out the biblical Jewish practice of abortions abortions performed by priests on the suspicions of a jealous husband and pointed out that women's issues were woman' work and men didn't dabble such unclean tediums.


(It's a) Christian one and I have proven that this is not true. Now you change the parameters to that any disagreement on abortion was due to misogyny and subjugation of women and I've proven that is not true.


It absolutely is due to the misogyny and subjugation of women. This thread is about the Catholic Church and it is a Christian issue. If it were up to the Catholic church women would never practice family planning and all birth control, including abortion would be banned. If they had it there way, women would be living like they did in the dark ages as far as their reproductive rights are concerned.


It is just as stupid and ignorant for a pro-abortion person to claim that the pro-life's position is based on subjugation of women as it is for a pro-life person to claim that a pro-abortion person's agenda is based on a love of killing babies. Both positions are incorrect, biased, unfounded, and idiotic.


No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice. That means that they believe that a woman has the right to use birth control to stave off unwanted pregnancies and have the remedy of abortion when birth control fails or they, for some reason had unprotected sex.

Pro-life = anti-choice. There's no other way to look at it.


Pro-abortion people are not that way because they get off on killing babies.


Lies and hyperbole!


Pro abortion people are about individual autonomy and the ability of the individual to choose what they do or do not do with their own bodies.


And you're against that? I know the Catholic Church is.


They don't really consider the fetus human. For them, again, it is not about killing babies but rather the autonomy of the individual.


Wrong! Nobody is claiming that a fertilized egg isn't a human egg. But, it is not a human being. Several things have to happen first.


Pro-life people are not that way because they "want to subjugate women." In fact, many people in the pro-life movement ARE women themselves.


Women can their own worst enemies.


They come from the standpoint that the fetus is an innocent human being and, as such, deserves the same protections and rights as any other human being. The believe that taking the life of an innocent child is murder, regardless if it is done pre or post birth. For them, again, it is not about subjugating women (or anyone for that matter) but rather protecting the life of an innocent when he/she cannot protect themselves.


No, they come from a position where biology is GOD. All hail the holy fertilized egg! Conceived in sin, born in sin, destined to live in perpetual sin.


Both sides have some compelling arguments. Neither side is the monster or subjugator or murderous baby-killer that fanatics on both sides often claim.


The pragmatic view of Catholic IS all about the subjugation of women. It condemns all forms of birth control. To them biology is more important that the living breathing autonomous self determined woman in favor of the whims of fickle biology.



edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Dear windword,
Would you be surprised if I said I think your position is close to correct, but needs some adjusting?




Hey, if the Catholic Church was just a club that you could just quite, I'd agree with you. But that's not what the church thinks about itself. The Catholic Church teaches and therefore Catholics think that the church is God's only church and NO ONE can get to heaven without them.
That's not quite true. You can check out an online Catechism and see for yourself. The Church teaches that even people who have never heard of Jesus, or people of a different religion, can go to Heaven


Is this a new teaching, Charles? Has the Vatican changed their stance on these decrees?


But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
............................

...all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.
www.ourcatholicfaith.org...


www.ourcatholicfaith.org...

The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. Two Magisterial texts are key to understanding its supreme nature and the obligation of all who are not invincibly ignorant of this truth to submit to Papal authority for the sake of their salvation.



... the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation... [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, 1870]




The Pope is the VICOR OF CHRIST. For people who believe that, ex-communication isn't just a statement of disagreement, it's a condemnation to HELL!
But the point is that Pelosi doesn't believe the Church teachings, otherwise there'd be no discussion. Since she doesn't accept the Church's position on Abortion, do you really think she accepts the position that she's going to Hell because of it?


You can't say that she is a believing Catholic and she's frightened by what Rome may do, and that she is not a believing Catholic.


Again. There is a difference between "faith" and the doctrine of men.

She may not be truly frightened, but their actions are akin to spiritual terrorism to other Catholics who do. What are all the Catholic woman who use birth control and encourage their daughters to use birth control supposed to think about their church, who is willing to ex-communicate an outspoken proponent? The agenda of this action is frighten and silence other Catholics who are proponents of birth control and family planning


Presto! You're healed. The Church is not demanding that she change her position. Even the title of this thread tells you that. They're saying, fine, keep your positions, but stop claiming to be a faithful, believing Catholic. It's her choice. And since she doesn't accept the Church's teachings, they have nothing to threaten her with.


No? The church is threatening her with ex-communication if she doesn't shut up about her opposition their draconian stance on women's reproductive rights. If you think that they believe that she can just go to another church and still go to heaven then you are not following Catholic doctrine. Excommunication = eternity in hell.


edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

The pragmatic view of Catholic IS all about the subjugation of women. It condemns all forms of birth control. To them biology is more important that the living breathing autonomous self determined woman in favor of the whilms of fickle biology.


And that view is quite incorrect. Read Humanae Vitae www.vatican.va... _vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
The entire proscription against abortion and birth in the Church is based on a philosophical belief of the sanctity of life and where reproduction comes into that.

Abortion was not permitted in the early church either:



Basil (c. 329-379)



To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:

She who has intentionally destroyed [the fetus] is subject to the penalty corresponding to a homicide. For us, there is no scrutinizing between the formed and unformed [fetus]; here truly justice is made not only for the unborn but also with reference to the person who is attentive only to himself/herself since so many women generally die for this very reason.

-First Letter 2



Canon II.

Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not.

- The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.



…those who give the abortifacients and those who take the poisons are guilty of homicide.





The Apocalypse of Peter (ca. 135)



"I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage and who procured abortions."

2:26



"Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so."

2:64






Ambrose (c.340-397)



Indeed there are those women who cut off the word prematurely born/aborted, before they give birth, there are those who have Christ in the womb but they will not yet have formed (him), to whom it is said: my children, whom I desire to bring forth again and again until Christ be formed in you.

Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 10, line 252 [private translation]



But why the eye or the hand, since the aborted child has both a hand and an eye which has already been formed?

-Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 10, line 283 [private translation]



And elsewhere the same Ecclesiastes, being an old man, guarded him better whom his mother had cast out by abortion, because he did not see these bad things which they make in this world, he neither came into these shadows nor walked in vanity, and for that reason he who did not come into this life will have more of a rest than he who came.

- De bono mortis, cap 2, par. 4, line 11



The poor get rid of their small children by exposure and denying them when they are discovered. But the rich also, so that their wealth will not be more divided, deny their children [when they are] in the womb and with all the force of parricide, they kill the beings of their wombs [while they are] in the same fruitful womb. In this way life is taken away from them before it has been given.

-Hexameron V.18.58 [private translation]



And you misrepresented Talmudic teachings, suggesting that there was consensus on the matter when was and is still debated by scholars today. Regardless, there was no support for unlimited abortion in the Torah, with several restrictions such as when the soul enters the body or for life of the mother. Even, when the soul enters is debated: 90 days, 60, days, 62 days. Here is a good article on the debate: www.vbm-torah.org...

So, again, anti-abortion is not a new position, not a strictly Christian or Catholic one, and has been around for millennia. The Early Church did not condone it and even Orthodox Judaism puts restrictions on it. Regardless of any indoctrination from "womyn's studies" classes, these are the historical facts.

"Subjugation of women" is a biased, prejudicial and unfounded assumption on your part, without any sort of evidence. The pro-life motivations are clear, through countless debates and writings and has nothing to do with subjugation of women, no matter how much you feel it must be because that supports your preconceived notions, but the truth is that anti-abortion advocates believe that they are trying to stop the murder of another human being. Whether a fetus is a human being or not is debatable, but their motivations are not.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword
 

Do you not understand the difference between the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation?


One compliments the other. There is no logical reason to supposed that if the soul pre-exists, it couldn't enter and reenter this earthly plain again and again.

But we don't believe that the soul pre-exists.


I know you don't. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't. Clearly he did.





appear to have been fabricated.



No.

There is nothing in there that refers to "past lives", which is what was fabricated. It's all about the pre-existence of the soul, which no one disputes Origen believed, and which no one, no one without an agenda, that is, claims was a teaching of the orthodox church.


I took quotes directly from Origen's writings. Clearly he DID believe in the pre-existence of the soul.


In addition, I don't know why you think that if "Jesus didn't believe the unborn to be innocent souls" that somehow means that he would be in favour of the murder of unborn children.


I have no doubt that if Jesus were here today he would be in favor of modern medicine and birth control. Jesus didn't place a high value on life or the quality of life. Jesus didn't worship biology. According to the church, Jesus violated all kinds of biological laws.

Jesus made it clear that this world is not his world. He had no compulsion to change laws, he said give to Caesar what Caasar wants. He didn't even fight for his own life, why do you think that he would fight for the unborn? Jesus was no pro-lifer.

He encouraged men to leave their families to follow him and taught that families should be divided, broken, for his mission. He didn't speak out against the stoning of rebellious teens. He called the Samaritan (Gentile) woman at the well a "dog."




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





And you misrepresented Talmudic teachings,


Citing references and scripture is not misrepresentation.


Regardless, there was no support for unlimited abortion in the Torah,


I never said there was.


So, again, anti-abortion is not a new position, not a strictly Christian or Catholic one, and has been around for millennia.


Yep.


The Early Church did not condone


I never said it did. But it didn't out law it until the 2nd century.


even Orthodox Judaism puts restrictions on it.


What is that supposed to mean?


Regardless of any indoctrination from "womyn's studies" classes, these are the historical facts. "Subjugation of women" is a biased, prejudicial and unfounded assumption on your part, without any sort of evidence.


There's no evidence if you completely ignore biblical history.


The pro-life motivations are clear, through countless debates and writings and has nothing to do with subjugation of women,


Many people disagree with that statement.


but the truth is that anti-abortion advocates believe that they are trying to stop the murder of another human being. Whether a fetus is a human being or not is debatable, but their motivations are not.


They are trying to ban birth control. They're Coming For Your Birth Control



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





And you misrepresented Talmudic teachings,


Citing references and scripture is not misrepresentation.


Regardless, there was no support for unlimited abortion in the Torah,


I never said there was.


So, again, anti-abortion is not a new position, not a strictly Christian or Catholic one, and has been around for millennia.


Yep.


The Early Church did not condone


I never said it did. But it didn't out law it until the 2nd century.


even Orthodox Judaism puts restrictions on it.


What is that supposed to mean?


Regardless of any indoctrination from "womyn's studies" classes, these are the historical facts. "Subjugation of women" is a biased, prejudicial and unfounded assumption on your part, without any sort of evidence.


There's no evidence if you completely ignore biblical history.


The pro-life motivations are clear, through countless debates and writings and has nothing to do with subjugation of women,


Many people disagree with that statement.


but the truth is that anti-abortion advocates believe that they are trying to stop the murder of another human being. Whether a fetus is a human being or not is debatable, but their motivations are not.


They are trying to ban birth control. They're Coming For Your Birth Control



So basically its "I'll ignore facts and stick with the womyn's studies talking points. Gotcha.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join