Don't let the right wing hoodwink you. Their stance on abortion has nothing to do with children, if it did these (so called) pro-lifers would be just as concerned with the rights of these children once their took their first breath of oxygen. When did any of these (so called) pro-lifers cast their vote to help impoverished, malnourished, or abused children? No way - they cry socialism! This whole (so called) pro-life charade has everything to do with keeping a block of voters in the GOP corner so they can win elections. Unborn children are just a political tool to them.
@mchill saidExactly the republicans state level politicos are garnering the extremist base vote by playing an internal game of ‘I’m more extreme than that other republican politico’
Don't let the right wing hoodwink you. Their stance on abortion has nothing to do with children, if it did these (so called) pro-lifers would be just as concerned with the rights of these children once their took their first breath of oxygen. When did any of these (so called) pro-lifers cast their vote to help impoverished, malnourished, or abused children? No way - they cry ...[text shortened]... ters in the GOP corner so they can win elections. Unborn children are just a political tool to them.
The sanctity of life.
But… not for animals. None if them are vegetarian.
So, why humans and not animals?
God said so in the bible. The same God who destroyed nearly every living thing in a great flood. One really can’t be sure that God’s moral compass is anything to go by.
Anyways, so which lives matter and which don’t are arbitarily based on choices people make, with some saying it’s in the bible.
Still eat pork though. Still want wars though. Not so much the turning of the other cheek…
And what about judge not, lest thy be judged?
Surely it’s up to God to pass judgement on pro-choicers and not a bunch of right-wing bible thumping lackeys?
If you say it’s alright to eat pork, that’s a choice. You make your ammends with the gods and your own conscience. So, it’s no different that a woman deciding what to do with her pregnancy.
@mchill said
Don't let the right wing hoodwink you. Their stance on abortion has nothing to do with children, if it did these (so called) pro-lifers would be just as concerned with the rights of these children once their took their first breath of oxygen. When did any of these (so called) pro-lifers cast their vote to help impoverished, malnourished, or abused children? No way - they cry ...[text shortened]... ters in the GOP corner so they can win elections. Unborn children are just a political tool to them.
And just an additional thought on the whole abortion issue.
If abortion keeps these people up at night, then why is contraception one of the next targets for the far right ?
It would seem that contraception would shrink the need for abortions.
The positions are highly contradictory in concept.
Except that the only thing they have in common is that both are viewed amongst the religious right as contributing to sexual promiscuity.
Or recreational sex as averagejoe liked to call it.
Of course now we wait for poor joe to drop by and ask who is going to pay for it all. 😛
@mghrn55
The key insight is this: who were the original settlers of the 13 colonies? Puritans. Puritanism, as H.L. Mencken once defined it, is the fear that someone somewhere may be happy. That mentality is still there, deeply rooted in the American conservative subconscious. Anyone who is having good sex and not suffering for it is intolerable to them.
@mghrn55 saidPS
And just an additional thought on the whole abortion issue.
If abortion keeps these people up at night, then why is contraception one of the next targets for the far right ?
It would seem that contraception would shrink the need for abortions.
The positions are highly contradictory in concept.
Except that the only thing they have in common is that both are viewed amongst ...[text shortened]... call it.
Of course now we wait for poor joe to drop by and ask who is going to pay for it all. 😛
Actually, it does have to do with children, contrary to the thread title. You just have to look backwards 2,000 years, to the Pauline conception of marriage and sexuality. There is a clear and simple ideology underlying opposition to a multitude of issues, including abortion, contraception, sex education in the state schools, non-heterosexuality, non-binarity (incl. transgender), gay marriage, all forms of non-monogamy (polyandry, polygamy, polyamory, etc.). The ideology is this: marriage as a sacrament. This is one of the elementary tenets of Christianity going back to the very inception of the religion. In short, the only legitimate reason men and women have to unite is for the purpose of getting children; the only legitimate form of sexuality is between one man and one woman who are married to each other, for the purpose of getting children. All other relations between men and women are not sacred but profane; all other forms of sexuality are not sacred but profane. Historically speaking, the other sacraments (the Eucharist, reconciliation, anointing the sick) have pretty much gone by the wayside among American Evangelicals, who therefore cling ever more tenaciously to their one remaining sacrament. It's really that simple, and that is, historically speaking, the underlying ideology underpinning the political situation in America vis a vis opposition to abortion, contraception, sex education in the state schools, non-heterosexuality, non-binarity (incl. transgender), gay marriage, etc.
The fact that these issues keep cropping up, for example in the form of trying to get state schools to teach creationism as science, or to forbid state schools from teaching that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, shows that America is still, even after 250+ years, struggling to separate religion from government. Most modern European states have long since put these issues behind them (Poland is an exception).
It’s all down to religion and, certainly in protestantism, to a great degree Paul, as you say.
However, most fundamentalis religions (majority of Islam, orthodox Judaism) have this anti-gay, pro-marriage message running through them.
To understand the identity politics behind it, one has to look at the times the religious texts were written. Most of the old testament was penned down around 550 BC. Some of it referring to history sometime earlier.
There were pagan religions, religions with more than 1 wife, cultures were homosexuality was normalized, etc.
So, to create an identity as a seperate group, they had to make themselves stand out.
Same with the Christians in the Roman time of sexual freedoms.
Basically the same situations as in Medina, hundreds of years later.