Sanders: Communism Light...

[simplicio]

I think the best one can do is argue about how strongly it was condemned. What sort of punishments were prescribed, compared to other crimes. But that still belies the point. Because legality is not the same thing as morality. People tend to forget that many medieval theologians considered prostitution something that shouldn't be a crime. Not because it wasn't immoral, but because such laws ultimately did more harm than good. Similarly modern day pro-lifers don't make an argument that women who procured abortion should be punished as murderers, or even at all.

We impose laws to create a regulated society, one where on the balance more justice occurs and things are more in accordance with what is good. All laws have to be balanced against what effects they will have.

Actually there is a stream within the pro life movement who do argue that abortion is murder, and the abortionist is a murderer, and the woman partakes in the act of murder, even going so far as arguing that the woman, along with the abortionist, should be held accountable to the state for crime of murder.

This argument flies in the face of the various reconciliation ministries like Rachael's Vineyard.

The fact that you can say that modern day prolifers don't make the argument suggests to me that you ignore the arguments actually made, instead relying on the simplistic "fer it, agin' it" categories.

[simplicio]

It was also so universally condemned by society in general that there was no need to mount a large public against it. It was taken as a given that abortion was wrong in most religious societies until the mid-20th Century.

It was widely condemned at the beginning of the 20th century, but as medicine slowly evolved, making abortion a practical possibility, attitudes slowly shifted. By the time the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, anti abortion was seen as a Catholic problem, not something for Christians in general to get in a twist about.

How often is it argued that abortion is the natural consequence of the sexual revolution, sexual gratification without responsibility? The churches which opposed the sexual revolution did not make the connection at the time.

Once abortion became a safe medical procedure, the individual conscience became the ultimate arbiter, abortion was reduced to a pragmatic choice. And today the abortifacients have become a practical, plentiful, and safe reality, driving down the number of surgical abortions. But the similarity between the abortion pill and pregnancy prevention raises difficult questions for the Christian church, so it is ignored. (It is even too triggering for the so called anti abortion Christians to confront on Tweb).

It was only after segregation lost its utility that abortion became an issue and the central rallying point for Christians, not before. The Christian church was largely silent on abortion and abortion rights when the arguments were making real headway in the fifties, sixties, and into the seventies.

[simplicio]

So in your mind the only way for Christians to help the poor is to have the government do it for them. That we should just sit back and take absolutely no personal responsibility. Like if we see someone freezing or starving we can safely ignore them because, hey we paid our taxes so we did our job, and just keep walking on by pleased with ourselves for having helped so much.

A really excellent argument, awesome job.

Except that I am not arguing that at all. I do disagree strongly with seer's argument.

Here something you might want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table

[Tassman]

Where is the falsehood in that post, other than the blatant editorializing in the first paragraph (tired old nonsense, cherry picked sources, embarrassingly nonbiblical)? I would dare say his post's main theme is that abortion was not a major issue for the church through the ages. The second paragraph rolled off a series of clear statements, statements which are not mere editorializing, but they can be examined.

You're correct of course as any fair reading of my post makes clear. Abortion has NOT been a major issue for Christianity nor Judaism through the ages - although there has been a thread running through them both from the beginning. And despite the long list of references to various apocryphal books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache etc. etc. etc. there is very little direct biblical proscription of abortion. And what there is more often via implication rather than direct prohibition - as per the Luke 1:41, 44 quote.

[demi-conservative]

Either a KGB agent or useful idiot.

Exclusive: For Bernie Sanders, his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union was an effort to build diplomatic ties. For the Soviets, it was the start of a years-long propaganda effort to exploit his antiwar agenda, documents obtained by The New York Times show.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1235747172538126338

[simplicio]

You're correct of course as any fair reading of my post makes clear. Abortion has NOT been a major issue for Christianity nor Judaism through the ages - although there has been a thread running through them both from the beginning. And despite the long list of references to various apocryphal books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache etc. etc. etc. there is very little direct biblical proscription of abortion. And what there is more often via implication rather than direct prohibition - as per the Luke 1:41, 44 quote.

Can one be a genuine Christian with a faith which is real and anchored in heaven itself, and still attempt to apply a fair reading?

A rhetorical question, because I am not sure what the atheist brings to the discussion other than nonbelief in any faith especially for claims about divine inspiration. (Heh, was that blatant trolling an atheist, or a plain exposition of the Christian view?)

But it is not rhetorical for the Christian, its a very real issue if one wants the world to see Christianity as offering insights which have validity and reason.

[Tassman]

Can one be a genuine Christian with a faith which is real and anchored in heaven itself, and still attempt to apply a fair reading?

A rhetorical question, because I am not sure what the atheist brings to the discussion other than nonbelief in any faith especially for claims about divine inspiration. (Heh, was that blatant trolling an atheist, or a plain exposition of the Christian view?)

But it is not rhetorical for the Christian, its a very real issue if one wants the world to see Christianity as offering insights which have validity and reason.

[rogue06]

I don't see where simplicio suggested that at all. Btw, you, we, are the government, so when the government initiates policies to help the poor, or to say to hell with them, it is we the people who make that decision. That doesn't mean that taking personal responsibility is therefore outlawed or something.

That would be true if we are a direct democracy, which we aren't.

My point is that Christians were explicitly commissioned to help the poor, not get someone else to do it.

[rogue06]

Please don't lie Tassman, of the facts listed, only the list of Jewish scholars and Church Fathers came from a pro-life website.

Actually I compiled that list from several different websites and some of which the topic of abortion was relatively incidental.

[simplicio]

That would be true if we are a direct democracy, which we aren't.

My point is that Christians were explicitly commissioned to help the poor, not get someone else to do it.

We have the example of the Old testament, where both the individuals were supposed to shoulder that responsibility, as well as the 'church', the temple itself. The responsibilites were not kept separate and distinct.

We may not be a direct democracy, but we are a representative democracy with many avenues open to us to influence the government who acts on our behalf.

[rogue06]

It was widely condemned at the beginning of the 20th century, but as medicine slowly evolved, making abortion a practical possibility, attitudes slowly shifted. By the time the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, anti abortion was seen as a Catholic problem, not something for Christians in general to get in a twist about.

How often is it argued that abortion is the natural consequence of the sexual revolution, sexual gratification without responsibility? The churches which opposed the sexual revolution did not make the connection at the time.

Once abortion became a safe medical procedure, the individual conscience became the ultimate arbiter, abortion was reduced to a pragmatic choice. And today the abortifacients have become a practical, plentiful, and safe reality, driving down the number of surgical abortions. But the similarity between the abortion pill and pregnancy prevention raises difficult questions for the Christian church, so it is ignored. (It is even too triggering for the so called anti abortion Christians to confront on Tweb).

It was only after segregation lost its utility that abortion became an issue and the central rallying point for Christians, not before. The Christian church was largely silent on abortion and abortion rights when the arguments were making real headway in the fifties, sixties, and into the seventies.

This sounds like someone who fell for the deliberate falsehood that illegal abortions were killing thousands upon thousands of women each year.

Washington Post gave the president of Planned Parenthood 4 Pinocchios last year for continuing to disseminate the lie that thousands of women died each year before Roe.

If legal abortion was so safe then folks like Kermit Gosnell and several others are hard to explain.

From another old post:

I've already commented on the "making them rare" aspect of the "safe, rare and legal" mantra voiced by abortion advocates so let's look at the other two parts.

---

Even though abortion has been legal for 45 years a number of abortion centers have conditions strikingly similar the worst of the horror stories circulated about "back-alley" abortions. Today in the era when making abortions legal was also supposed to make them safe the facilities, like the ones in New York City, are inspected less than tanning salons and "Illinois abortion clinics hadn't been inspected for up to 15 years before the Gosnell case broke, an Associated Press investigation found."^[1][2] the public has become more concerned about the conditions in these places. Similar things were taking place at centers runs by Nareshkumar "Naresh" Patel, Brian Finkel, Robert Rho, James Pendergraft IV and others. Abortion centers are being investigated for botched abortions or hazardous facilities in Alabama, New Mexico, Minnesota, Maryland, Colorado and Florida. There may be more, since abortion record-keeping is abysmal.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer

Source: Problems with N.J. late-term abortion business similar to Pa.'s

For five months last year, New Jersey regulators received complaints that abortion doctor Steven Brigham, 54, was running a secret, cash-only, late-term abortion business using a risky interstate scheme - one for which he was disciplined in the 1990s.

Just as in the Gosnell case, regulators took no public action against Brigham - until a police raid forced them to.

...

None of Brigham's six New Jersey clinics is licensed to do surgery, so, rather than lose business, he evaded the rules, prosecutors say. He initiated late-term abortions in Voorhees; the next day, he led car caravans of patients, in labor, to Elkton, Md., for surgery.

...

Elizabeth Barnes, director of Cherry Hill Women's Center, a South Jersey abortion clinic, said she wrote to New Jersey's medical licensing board in June 2009 detailing her suspicions that Brigham was starting third-trimester abortions in Voorhees and finishing them in a clandestine clinic, probably in Maryland.

In response, Barnes said, an investigator talked to her, off and on, for months. Yet no official action was taken against Brigham.

Barnes' suspicions should have rung bells. In the 1990s, Brigham did late-term abortions that straddled Voorhees and New York City.

In 1994, New York authorities took his license in that state for botching two abortions, one begun in Voorhees. They called him "undertrained," with "submarginal abilities" and "not the slightest recognition of his deficiencies." New Jersey prosecuted Brigham for those same cases, plus four more. But Brigham's appeals ultimately reached an administrative judge who found him "sincere" and "credible," and reinstated his license.

...

On Aug. 17, police raided the Elkton clinic - a storefront operation with no sign, that had opened about a year earlier - but could not find her medical records. They did, however, find 35 late-term fetal bodies and parts, none with records.

...

Although Elkton is closed, three American Women's Services clinics are open in Maryland. So are six in New Jersey, two in Virginia (where he has never had a license), and two in Pennsylvania.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

An investigation into New Jersey abortion center injuries revealed that they are not being inspected, as the law required. The state has four centers that perform late-term abortions and 3 of the 4 had gone 5 years or even longer without a state health inspection.

Here in Georgia Channel 2 WSB (owned by the same company that runs the proudly liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper) Lori Geary, who recently stepped down as a political reporter and was also an anchor at CNN's Headline News, conducted an investigation finding that inspections of all five abortion centers in the state found numerous health violations including "Unsterilized instruments, dirty linens and expired medications"

Source: Records: Georgia's abortion clinics face numerous inspection violations

Geary got the inspection records for all five clinics three weeks after filing the open records request. Some of them were pages long, listing numerous violations. Those violations were for items like expired medications and medical instruments, including speculums. Others listed unsterilized equipment, sterilized and non-sterile supplies stored in the same room with a traffic cone, the vent in a biohazard room taped off with cardboard, soiled linens in surgical rooms and stirrups wrapped in duct tape. One violation was for iodine swabs to prevent wound infections that had expired 10 years ago.

"If I was a patient at that clinic I would be horrified to know that maybe the tools they were using were not clean," said Galloway.

Planned Parenthood runs only one of the five surgical clinics. It's located in Augusta and had 23 violations in 2011, and paid a $1,400 fine.

In a very candid interview, the organization's CEO told Geary there was a change in leadership at the clinic, and a corrective action plan was submitted. Still, state records show, inspectors didn't visit the clinic until two years later, in March 2013.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

And Planned Parenthood actually sued the state of Indiana trying to block a law that required yearly inspections. The law also required they keep and turn over information to the Department of Health detailing "abortion complications" that arose. PP complained both requirements "impose unique and burdensome obligations" on them.

Pro-abortion activists maintain such oversight of abortion centers is "medically unnecessary" and "politically motivated" but even after Gosnell inspectors continued to find serious problems in other facilities in that state. For example, a recent "determined that the facility was not in compliance with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Health's Rules and Regulations for Ambulatory Care Facilities" and among other things

Observation of the facility on August 12, 2016, revealed the facility was very warm and did not have operating air conditioning. According to Accuweather, the actual high temperature on August 12, 2016, was 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The facility did not have a thermometer inside and could not provide the room air temperature.

An interview conducted on August 12, 2016, at 10:00 AM with EMP1 confirmed the facility did not report the loss of air conditioning, as an infrastructure failure. EMP1 further revealed that the air conditioning broke around June 17-20, 2016. EMP1 confirmed that a service technician was onsite on June 23, 2016, and July 28, 2016. The air conditioner had not been fixed as of August 12, 2016. EMP1 further stated that "I guess I should have reported it."

groundbreaking study of abortion in Chile published in 2012 is the first in-depth analysis of a large time series, year by year, of maternal deaths and their determinants and was led by Dr. Elard Koch^[3]

Source: A ground-breaking abortion study from Chile

These data suggest that over time, restrictive laws may have a restraining effect on the practice of abortion and promote its decrease. In fact, Chile exhibits today one of the lowest abortion-related maternal deaths in the world, with a 92.3% decrease since 1989 and a 99.1% accumulated decrease over 50 years.

Second, from the perspective of human life, especially if a developing country is looking to simultaneously protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, a plausible hypothesis after the Chilean study is that abortion restriction may be effective when is combined with adequately-implemented public policies to increase educational levels of women and to improve access to maternal health facilities. A restrictive law may discourage practice, which is suggested by the decrease of hospitalizations due to clandestine abortions estimated in Chile.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

So while pro-abortion proponents repeatedly insist that abortion regulations or bans would result in a back-alley abortion surge and giving rise to an increase in deaths and serious injuries of women, the facts simply put indicate that this is not the case.

Finally, one should bear in mind that if Roe were to be overturned it is highly doubtful that this would suddenly lead to abortions being outlawed nationwide. It would almost certainly throw it back to the states to decide on a state-by-state basis. It is inconceivable that states like California or New York would choose to make them illegal. The same could be said about other "blue" states (including those that voted for Trump in 2016) and likely for a number of "red" ones as well.

And even in states that do opt to make them illegal, it would likely be like how it was in Ireland before they legalized abortion two months ago, where those wanting one simply took a day trip over to Great Britain in order to get one. The same with Poland which still has tight restrictions on abortion. As the Guardian noted matter-of-factly, "Polish women seeking abortions typically go to Germany or other neighbouring countries or order abortion pills online."








1. Illinois Abortion Clinics Inspected an Average of Once Every 9 Years with 40% of licensed centers going between 14 and 17 years without inspections. Moreover, the state health department doesn't regulate Planned Parenthood but rather under Illinois law, they are regulated by the Illinois Department of Professional and Financial Regulation

2. And, according to the Grand Jury report investigating him



In cases where the baby was born alive after Gosnell tried to abort it he stuck scissors into the back of their necks to cut their spinal cords (which he called "ensuring fetal demise)," and at least once making a joke of it.

In the end Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of 3 of infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a patient. He was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion, and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.

3.

[seer]

I do disagree strongly with seer's argument.

What exactly did you disagree with?

[rogue06]

We have the example of the Old testament, where both the individuals were supposed to shoulder that responsibility, as well as the 'church', the temple itself. The responsibilites were not kept separate and distinct.

We may not be a direct democracy, but we are a representative democracy with many avenues open to us to influence the government who acts on our behalf.

Sorry sport, but your attempt to equate the Church with the government falls as flat as most of your other fact-free assertions.

This has been discussed before.

Precisely. It was how they took care of themselves and each other -- a very small group that in effect was an extended family. Nowhere is it even suggested that this was supposed to be a blueprint for how a nation or government should do things. In fact I Timothy 5:8, where we read

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

makes it clear that it is an individual responsibility and not something to be sloughed on to some group. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting government to force others to do so.

Moreover, in II Thessalonians 3:10 Paul tells us that any assistance that we give out needs to be paired with responsibility

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Those who slack off, refuse to work, and expect a handout should get nothing. They should be refused aid. That contradicts the whole "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" mantra of the left.

The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who had increased his wealth ten-fold.

And let's be blunt, socialism is not about sharing but rather seizing someone's property by force or threat of force (if you don't voluntarily hand it over) and giving it away including to those who do nothing but hold out their hand and then demand more. And keep in mind that the Bible does not condone in any way shape or form someone demanding money from others. Instead it explicitly teaches that we should not covet what others have (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21)


Socialism teaches that we should look at what other people have, crave it and then decide on what should be taken away from them so that we can have it.

Finally, "common ownership" didn't mean everything was shared. As Acts Acts 12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; Colossians 4:15 makes clear some Christians (including John Mark -- the first reference) still owned property and their own homes, allowing them to be used upon occasion as meeting places for the church.




I always find it ironic how those who refuse to listen to Him and scream about separation of Church and State whenever someone quotes Scripture when talking about social policy suddenly turn around and seek to try to use Him to support something they want.

[simplicio]

This sounds like someone who fell for the deliberate falsehood that illegal abortions were killing thousands upon thousands of women each year.

If legal abortion was so safe then folks like Kermit Gosnell and several others are hard to explain.

From another old post:

You seem to love those straw arguments.

In the mid 19th century, every medical procedure carried risks of infection to patient, even washing hands was not seen as a big deal. Women died in childbirth from infections, even when little intervention was needed (Dairy cows and hogs had better survival rates during parturition). With the advent of hygienic practices and better doctor training (it was separated from the vocation of barber), all procedures became more safe.

Would surgical abortions become acceptable if they could become 'safe' like a knee replacement or a tonsilectomy?

Compared to 19th century, abortions are 'safe'. And as safety increased and mortality decreased, Christians also slowly lessened their distaste for abortions. By the seventies, much of Protestantism lost its opposition to legal abortions, it was seen the "Catholic Problem".

Even today, abortions in pill form do not generate the same outrage from anti abortion Christians that surgical abortions do. And that technology is driving the decline in Planned Parenthood surgical abortions.

[rogue06]

You seem to love those straw arguments.

In the mid 19th century, every medical procedure carried risks of infection to patient, even washing hands was not seen as a big deal. Women died in childbirth from infections, even when little intervention was needed (Dairy cows and hogs had better survival rates during parturition). With the advent of hygienic practices and better doctor training (it was separated from the vocation of barber), all procedures became more safe.

Would surgical abortions become acceptable if they could become 'safe' like a knee replacement or a tonsilectomy?

Compared to 19th century, abortions are 'safe'. And as safety increased and mortality decreased, Christians also slowly lessened their distaste for abortions. By the seventies, much of Protestantism lost its opposition to legal abortions, it was seen the "Catholic Problem".

Even today, abortions in pill form do not generate the same outrage from anti abortion Christians that surgical abortions do. And that technology is driving the decline in Planned Parenthood surgical abortions.

Speaking of straw men (something you have shown quite a talent for crafting), it is indeed telling that you had to go back well over a hundred years in an attempt to make your point when we're specifically talking about the second half of the 20th century.

You're working overtime to be misleading this morning. Trying to catch up on a quota or something?