Chelsea Clinton Says It’s ‘Unchristian’ To End Legal Abortion. Claims She’s Deeply Pious

[ultramanhyata]

I think many mainline Protestants simply ignore them, and if pressed on them, would be hesitant to affirm that they actually came from God.

I was raised mainstream Protestant (Methodist) and none of my Sunday School teachers ever backed away from the idea that the Israelites were warriors directly commanded by God. Not in the slightest.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

As long as you understand that, as a Jew and respecter of the Law, Paul would have considered his in utero self as having lesser value than his adult self.

I don't understand it that way at all, because Paul does not take that stance here. In fact, he presents God's interaction with Him while in his mother's womb as a core part of understanding his apostleship as an adult.

You have a political axe to grind here. It's a poor starting point for solid Biblical study.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I was raised mainstream Protestant (Methodist) and none of my Sunday School teachers ever backed away from the idea that the Israelites were warriors directly commanded by God. Not in the slightest.

How long ago was that? Either way, obviously there are going to be many mainline protestants who accept these accounts as authoritative. But in talking with protestants I've come to the conclusion that a sizable (and growing) number are skeptical about the veracity of stories that claim God ordered atrocities. I find it troubling that so many Christians are willing to resort to divine command theory to justify the unjustifiable. You might enjoy this audio from Peter Enns, one of my favorite biblical scholars: https://peteenns.com/b4np-podcast-episode-30-taking-shot-divine-violence-pete/

 

[RockstarChris]

can we still abort Chelsea Clinton?

 

[Ruprecht]

Randy Alcorn shows beyond a reasonable doubt that all methods of artificial contraception (with only two exceptions: condoms and diaphragms) sometimes operate by killing a human being within the first few days of her being conceived. In a word, they are all abortifacients.

The primary mechanisms are the prevention of ovulation and fertilisation. They also increase the chance of the fertilised egg failing to implant on the wall of the uterus, but then a large percentage of fertilised eggs fail to do that anyway (I've seen estimates from 20%-70%).
If you consider conception to be when the egg is fertilised and not when the fertilised egg implants on the uterine wall, that seems problematic. It means the majority of humans likely died before birth.

 

[Madmick]

Explain, in particular, what ones and what's your point?

That it's better to educate a populace than garnish their freedom via regulations (including deeper taxation).

More than anything I'm being cheeky due to the flaw of your claims and philosophical presumptions. It has nothing to do with your supposition. It's cultural. Canadians are no more educated than the Japanese, and not much less free, yet the Japanese are among the world's leading aborters, and are #1, with it their predominant form of birth control, IIRC, if you count the "morning after" pills. Meanwhile, your own abortion rate has historically been roughly identical to our own:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/fulltext

Unlike the Guttmacher Institute, the Lancet isn't an abortion advocacy group that is keen to promote the virtue of zero restrictions on abortion rights. They have an agenda.

The more firm truth is that whites are far less likely to abort children, and Canada is incredibly white. Our massive migrant populations and our increasing concentrations of urban poverty are associated with our higher rates of abortion.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't understand it that way at all, because Paul does not take that stance here. In fact, he presents God's interaction with Him while in his mother's womb as a core part of understanding his apostleship as an adult.

You have a political axe to grind here. It's a poor starting point for solid Biblical study.

I already referenced the texts in Exodus 21:22. The law of Moses assigned a lesser penalty for the person who causes the death of a fetus (via miscarriage) than for the person who causes the death, or even injury, of the mother.

This leads to one inescapable conclusion: The Jews believed that the unborn did not have the same value, or quality of full personhood, as the born.

Personally, I consider abortion (as a birth control option), even in the first trimester, an act of heinous immorality. I would shed no tears were Roe v Wade overturned. But nowhere does the Bible provide clear support for my position.

You are the one with the political ax to grind. And you're right - you can't effectively interpret scripture from a biased starting point.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Personally, I consider abortion (as a birth control option), even in the first trimester, an act of heinous immorality. I would shed no tears were Roe v Wade overturned. But nowhere does the Bible provide clear support for my position.

So we agree on several major points then:

There is no explicit prohibition against abortion in the Bible.

 

[Andy Capp]

That it's better to educate a populace than garnish their freedom via regulations (including deeper taxation).

More than anything I'm being cheeky due to the flaw of your claims and philosophical presumptions. It has nothing to do with your supposition. It's cultural. Canadians are no more educated than the Japanese, and not much less free, yet the Japanese are among the world's leading aborters, and are #1, with it their predominant form of birth control, IIRC, if you count the "morning after" pills. Meanwhile, your own abortion rate has historically been roughly identical to our own:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/fulltext

Unlike the Guttmacher Institute, the Lancet isn't an abortion advocacy group that is keen to promote the virtue of zero restrictions on abortion rights. They have an agenda.

The more firm truth is that whites are far less likely to abort children, and Canada is incredibly white. Our massive migrant populations and our increasing concentrations of urban poverty are associated with our higher rates of abortion.

What is it with people misrepresenting me on here lately? Am I too tough to deal with on even ground? I'm not going to deny I just picked the first source I came across because it was sufficient to make the real point, which was that the lack of any law prohibiting abortion hadn't turned Canada into a massive hotbed of deleted kiddies, contrary to your assertion that the status quo was barbaric. It didn't have to exactly represent Canadian abortion rates so long as it didn't massively misrepresent them.

Let's hear these flawed claims and philosophical presumptions. Notwithstanding the above having rendered them moot, I'm open to learning about myself (or refuting error, as the case may be).

 

[ultramanhyata]

How long ago was that? Either way, obviously there are going to be many mainline protestants who accept these accounts as authoritative. But in talking with protestants I've come to the conclusion that a sizable (and growing) number are skeptical about the veracity of stories that claim God ordered atrocities. I find it troubling that so many Christians are willing to resort to divine command theory to justify the unjustifiable. You might enjoy this audio from Peter Enns, one of my favorite biblical scholars: https://peteenns.com/b4np-podcast-episode-30-taking-shot-divine-violence-pete/

The obstacle I found in trying to plausibly deny the culpability of God in the Israelite atrocities, while at the same time remaining a believer in Jesus, was the fact that Jesus himself never presented such an argument.

Isn't it sort of impossible to maintain that such a "setting the record straight" about his Father to his Jewish brethren wouldn't have been a first order of business for Jesus??

 

[Andy Capp]

So we agree on several major points then:

My opinion on abortion is that men should be keeping their opinions on abortion to themselves.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

My opinion on abortion is that men should be keeping their opinions on abortion to themselves.

Sexism has been a characteristic of the progressive movement for a long time now. But it is a fairly recent development that sexist views are flaunted as if they were some sort of virtue.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Sexism has been a characteristic of the progressive movement for a long time now. But it is a fairly recent development that sexist views are flaunted as if they were some sort of virtue.

And I'm sure the right and Trumpism is devoid of sexism in all it's forms.

"Grab them by the pussy"

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And I'm sure the right and Trumpism is devoid of sexism in all it's forms.

"Grab them by the pussy"

No, of course the right isn't devoid of sexism.

But you rarely see it so explicitly stated as if it were virtuous. Look at the comment I was quoting. It directly states that men should not talk about this issue. He doesn't realize that this statement is exist. And no leftists can be counted on to criticize such a statement as sexist or similar statements as racist.

It's not that I think everyone or even most on the left are sexists or racists. I don't. But moderate leftists appear to have a very high tolerance for sexism and racism so long as it is coming from a left perspective.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

No, of course the right isn't devoid of sexism.

But you rarely see it so explicitly stated as if it were virtuous. Look at the comment I was quoting. It directly states that men should not talk about this issue. He doesn't realize that this statement is exist. And no leftists can be counted on to criticize such a statement as sexist or similar statements as racist.

It's not that I think everyone or even most on the left are sexists or racists. I don't. But moderate leftists appear to have a very high tolerance for sexism and racism so long as it is coming from a left perspective.

But those on the right dont?

<puh-lease75>

 

[My Spot]

No, of course the right isn't devoid of sexism.

But you rarely see it so explicitly stated as if it were virtuous. Look at the comment I was quoting. It directly states that men should not talk about this issue. He doesn't realize that this statement is exist. And no leftists can be counted on to criticize such a statement as sexist or similar statements as racist.

It's not that I think everyone or even most on the left are sexists or racists. I don't. But moderate leftists appear to have a very high tolerance for sexism and racism so long as it is coming from a left perspective.

It's funny, there are Dems still in Congress who didn't think it was a big deal when Clinton got a BJ from a sweathog intern in the oval office but thought Trump saying something over 10 years ago should've disqualified him.
BTW, mega is an admitted troll. You're wasting your time.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

But those on the right dont?

<puh-lease75>

Let's focus. Do you think the statement I quoted is sexist?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

BTW, mega is an admitted troll. You're wasting your time.

I'm an admitted troll as well. I don't feel like my conversations with him over the years have been a waste of time. They are frustrating at times, but that's normal because we disagree.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Let's focus. Do you think the statement I quoted is sexist?

You are now avoiding the fact that you said the left is tolerant of sexism and racism if it comes from the left in comparison of the right. I'm guessing you believe the right weeds out racism and sexism wherever it may occur.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You are now avoiding the fact that you said the left is tolerant of sexism and racism if it comes from the left in comparison of the right. I'm guessing you believe the right weeds out racism and sexism wherever it may occur.

I never said any such thing. I admitted sexism exists on the right and then pointed out that folks like yourself seem to have a high tolerance for sexism if it comes from the right place. Your unwillingness to even address the comment I was criticizing rather than deflect and make this about Trump seems to me to prove my point rather nicely.

The reason we are taking this short diversion from the thread topic is because a poster made an explicitly sexist comment from what seems to be a left perspective. Do you agree with that comment?