Sanders: Communism Light...

[rogue06]

Yeah I'm beginning to smell that simplico is just larping.

Nah... LARPers (is that a word?) are at least interesting.

[rogue06]

The trend started earlier in the century, the realignment of Christian ethics, which made the acceptance of abortion possible. Ideas, especially Christian ideas, are always intertwined with other ideas.

Abortion was seen as something separate and different, its own category, at the start of the 20th century. By 1975, it was seen as just another procedure, albeit with some moral implications (namely, the act and sin of fornication). That shift in view would not have been possible without advances in medicine, advances which had their start in the 19th century. If the mortality rates had stayed high, even the secular world would not have moved to accept abortion. Mortality rates are NOT the same as total numbers of deaths, even though you conflated the two earlier.

Perhaps you could explain the lack of attention abortion got from virtually the whole of Protestantism, as well as from many Catholics.

As Nathanson noted, abortion supporters like himself had to lie through their teeth about the dangers of illegal abortions (claiming that 10,000 women a year died as a result when really it rarely exceeded a hundred) so that people thought it was necessary to legalize it to make it safer. But as butchers like Gosnell, Patel, Finkel, Rho, Pendergraft IV and others have shown legalizing did not make it "safer."

And for some odd reason you seem to have left out the moral implication of the act and sin of murder, which is what Western society viewed abortion as being for the past 2000 years

As for the bolded part... the fact that it was already illegal and not accepted might have had something to do with it

[rogue06]

It has received some attention, there's a rather consistent condemnation of it by Christians throughout history. We've already more than adequately shown the early Christian community condemned, as well as jewish rabbis in their own time. You won't find a bishop giving approval of it at any time.

If the subject is treated much less frequently in the past it's because its occurrence was much lower. You have more frequent condemnation of parents who intentionally exposed their children to cold to kill them. A person obtaining abortificant poisons back then was a rather rare occurrence, and selling poisons like that was also condemned.

The folks who made and sold them often found themselves charged with witchcraft

[simplicio]

It has received some attention, there's a rather consistent condemnation of it by Christians throughout history. We've already more than adequately shown the early Christian community condemned, as well as jewish rabbis in their own time. You won't find a bishop giving approval of it at any time.

If the subject is treated much less frequently in the past it's because its occurrence was much lower. You have more frequent condemnation of parents who intentionally exposed their children to cold to kill them. A person obtaining abortificant poisons back then was a rather rare occurrence, and selling poisons like that was also condemned.

Leonard, you realize you truncated my post?

The previous paragraph used the specific year 1975, which was two years after the Roe decision.

Who, or which Christians, (to make Sparko happy, which other Christians) spoke out and condemned abortion in 1975? Most of Protestantism was silent on the subject, it was not until later that Protestants started showing up to protest abortion.

The decade after Roe had few actively objecting to abortion. Yes, much of the Catholic leadership did speak out against abortion, the leadership did lead, however the laity by and large did not follow, similar to contraception.

[Leonhard]

Leonard, you realize you truncated my post?

I apologize, I'll address the time of 1975.

Who, or which Christians, (to make Sparko happy, which other Christians) spoke out and condemned abortion in 1975? Most of Protestantism was silent on the subject, it was not until later that Protestants started showing up to protest abortion.

Are you talking about official written condemnations, or just actual disagreement and grassroots activity? Roe vs Wade was prostested as early as in 1973 where the National Association of Evangelicals adopted a resolution against it. As you say the Catholic Church consistently condemned it. However to say that Catholics were the only ones doing so doesn't fly.

The decade after Roe had few actively objecting to abortion.

This is a flat out falsehood, there were then and now ongoing protests, so many in fact that pro-abortionists created laws to restrict protests at clinics. It has also been an ongoing theme of the Republican party since then, to rain in and restrict abortion.

[rogue06]

I apologize, I'll address the time of 1975.



Are you talking about official written condemnations, or just actual disagreement and grassroots activity? Roe vs Wade was prostested as early as in 1973 where the National Association of Evangelicals adopted a resolution against it. As you say the Catholic Church consistently condemned it. However to say that Catholics were the only ones doing so doesn't fly.



This is a flat out falsehood, there were then and now ongoing protests, so many in fact that pro-abortionists created laws to restrict protests at clinics. It has also been an ongoing theme of the Republican party since then, to rain in and restrict abortion.

Sheesh Leon, don't confuse sport with troublesome things like facts. They upset his narrative.

[simplicio]

The former is universally held by pro-life groups. If you have an abortion you committed murder. The question of how this should be legally regulated is a seperate issue however, and you'll be hard pressed to find any mainstream group calling for capital punishment of women who get abortions.

That was my point.

Does the woman have a choice in the matter?

Is she complicit in the crime?

Murder is a capital crime, a malicious act so heinous that the state may call for the head (from Latin caput). Not many states actually take a life as punishment anymore, but the term still applies.

"If you have an abortion, you committed murder"... "you'll be hard pressed to find any mainstream group calling for capital punishment for women who get abortions". I assume you mean by capital punishment you mean treating it as murder before the law (few murderers are sentenced to die). One very Christian ideas is to have the positive law reflect the natural (moral) law.

I do not think it is universally held by pro life groups at all, in fact some pro life groups are not at all comfortable with the label of murder because of its implication for the women. It creates a very big inconsistency.

[Leonhard]

That was my point. Does the woman have a choice in the matter? Is she complicit in the crime? Murder is a capital crime, ... One very Christian ideas is to have the positive law reflect the natural (moral) law.

It is not quite that simple, even for those who subscribe to natural law. Even in this case the law is there to ensure the good of society. The effects of any law has to be considered in order to judge whether it creates more evil than it prevents.

I gave you the example of St. Thomas Aquinas who is one of the medieval revivers of the natural law approach to ethics, and he considered protestitution as something that should not be punished even if it was evil. Similarly lying is against the natural law, but is not in general forbidden, though defamation, impersonation, falsifying evidence, fraud etc are.

We would have to make a rational judgement based on evidence to see would be achieved by punishing those who seek abortion. It might not be worth it. What is the real goal of pro-life groups is to restrain abortion, and decrease its occurrences.

I do not think it is universally held by pro life groups at all...

You are free to be in denial. None of the major pro-life groups call for capitol punishments of women who seek and acquire an abortion. This is a fact.

[simplicio]

Sheesh Leon, don't confuse sport with troublesome things like facts. They upset his narrative.

Except the republican Party did not make abortion an issue until later.

Many Protestants saw it as a Catholic problem, and even some saw abortion as not a big deal. The Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions through the first half of the seventies, arguing for access to abortion. Surprisingly to many today, the Protestant pro life segment was dominated by liberal churches.

Trigger alert: The Baptist press gave their blessing to Roe, one Roe lawyer was a Southern Baptist. The Baptist Joint Committee argued against the Hyde Amendment (restricting federal funds for abortion) because it violated the establishment clause, the establishment of the Catholic Church in US. (the old radical separation of church and state has given way to a position for government accommodation of religion).

The present emphasis on rights based approaches did not catch on until the eighties, after a long battle by elites, it took a while before it caught on with the grass roots, the rank and file.

My narrative is founded on the facts of history, not romantic mythical fabtasies.

[simplicio]

It is not quite that simple, even for those who subscribe to natural law. Even in this case the law is there to ensure the good of society. The effects of any law has to be considered in order to judge whether it creates more evil than it prevents.

I gave you the example of St. Thomas Aquinas who is one of the medieval revivers of the natural law approach to ethics, and he considered protestitution as something that should not be punished even if it was evil. Similarly lying is against the natural law, but is not in general forbidden, though defamation, impersonation, falsifying evidence, fraud etc are.

We would have to make a rational judgement based on evidence to see would be achieved by punishing those who seek abortion. It might not be worth it. What is the real goal of pro-life groups is to restrain abortion, and decrease its occurrences.



You are free to be in denial. None of the major pro-life groups call for capitol punishments of women who seek and acquire an abortion. This is a fact.

You are right that none of the major pro life groups call for capital punishment, a point I acknowledge. My point is that some pro life groups object to the murder label, because of its implications on justice.

[simplicio]

It's not just one post Simplicio. It's your entire demeanor here. All of the various attack threads you start, the way you talk about Christians as if you were not part of the group (calling us "them" for example, referring to Christians in the third person, excluding yourself from the group, "a question for Christians here" instead of "A question for other Christians here" for example. I am not the first person to question you about it.

Why not address my post.

When I say "a question for Christians here", it could mean that the question is directed to Christians, as opposed to atheists, who generally have a different basis for their moral decisions. I would think that is the most direct interpretation of the phrase.

[simplicio]

As Nathanson noted, abortion supporters like himself had to lie through their teeth about the dangers of illegal abortions (claiming that 10,000 women a year died as a result when really it rarely exceeded a hundred) so that people thought it was necessary to legalize it to make it safer. But as butchers like Gosnell, Patel, Finkel, Rho, Pendergraft IV and others have shown legalizing did not make it "safer."

And for some odd reason you seem to have left out the moral implication of the act and sin of murder, which is what Western society viewed abortion as being for the past 2000 years

As for the bolded part... the fact that it was already illegal and not accepted might have had something to do with it

Read the first sentence of the post.

And would abortion become acceptable if the abortion industry did not draw in hacks?

I left out the moral implications because it is irrelevant to my argument, as I am not arguing for its morality.

[demi-conservative]

I gave you the example of St. Thomas Aquinas who is one of the medieval revivers of the natural law approach to ethics, and he considered protestitution as something that should not be punished even if it was evil.

The big difference is that murder is something that should be punished and is punished. Within society's agreement that murderers should be punished, some want to carve out an exception.

[simplicio]

The big difference is that murder is something that should be punished and is punished. Within society's agreement that murderers should be punished, some want to carve out an exception.

But just who wants to carve out the exception? If the women commits murder, then is she also a victim or a murderer?

A society ought not let murderers get off without consequences.

[demi-conservative]

But just who wants to carve out the exception? If the women commits murder, then is she also a victim or a murderer?

If the women commits murder, by definition she is a murderer

A society ought not let murderers get off without consequences.

Yes.