Pro Choice or Not

[punkin]

Okay, then.



Or, ya know, it could be new. What, new tenets/things aren't being found in religion? Oh, my mistake. Religions have never changed/been altered by new factors of evidence.



I asked just that. Maybe I didn't word it that way, but what I asked was clear. "Is that new to the Jewish Faith?". "Is that new a dress?" Same thing. Asking if something is new.

We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig. We dig a digga dig dig.

Just thought I'd throw in a Disney reference.

Listen Ariel, you made a nasty comment. You suggested )in so many words_ that Jenny was making up her own religious rules. You were proven wrong. Appologize and quit defending it.

 

[PoohnPglet]

"Is that some kind of new Jewish law?"

How is that offensive?

No, seriously.

I don't understand it.

It's like asking, "Is that a new dress?" All you're inquiring is to whether it is new or not b/c you haven't seen it/heard of it/read about it/etc.

Actually - Jenny quoted it more accurately - you said 'new' Jewish law.

Ok - see how this reads to you.

Is that a new dress?

compared to

Is that a 'new' dress?

No one is telling you how to speak - but when you offend people, be prepared for them to stand up and say so.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

"Is that some kind of new Jewish law?"

How is that offensive?

No, seriously.

I don't understand it.

It's like asking, "Is that a new dress?" All you're inquiring is to whether it is new or not b/c you haven't seen it/heard of it/read about it/etc.

Honestly you cannot see how this is a snotty comment?

You cannot compare a dress to Jewish Law. Come on.

 

[declansdad]

You know, these discussions would be much better if people stopped worrying about attacking others and just discussed the issues. This thread seems to go along just fine and then someone decides it time to call someone out on something they said. Once that happens, we go pages and pages comenting on each other rather than the topic at hand.

 

[chobie]

You know, these discussions would be much better if people stopped worrying about attacking others and just discussed the issues. This thread seems to go along just fine and then someone decides it time to call someone out on something they said. Once that happens, we go pages and pages comenting on each other rather than the topic at hand.

Actually this discussion was not going along just fine. There were accusations all over the place. But, that is part of a discussion board discussion. There will be misunderstandings and off-topic discussions. This isn't a moderated political debate. This is not the Mclaughlin group. If people want to be taken seriously and have their opinions discussed then when they make a mistake they should apologize.

 

[Laura]

Well, quite honestly, it seems, only the people here have misread anything of mine (here being the DIS, not this thread), whereas, people offline, and not just people I know personally, have understood my humor and have been able to pick it apart from the more 'serious' topics. They were also able to tell when I asked, "Is that a new Jewish...", they knew I meant it as was. New Jewish Law, New Pagan Law...new laws in old religions. I've seen it many times. That's where that question stemmed from.

It's like...say someone says something that can be taken crudely in life. What do you do? Do you:

A: Calmly discuss with them why you're offended

B: Yell at them, saying, "How dare you say such?!"

C: Let it along, because you're only one person, or you're only one group

D: Ask for clarification

(Say the topic is homosexuality. You've got a group of Catholics and Atheists talking about it. Someone says, "I don't believe homosexuality exists." Now, that could be taken two ways. "I don't believe homosexuality exists." or "I don't agree with homosexuality", depending on how it was said. (How is easier to clarify offline than on...) Apply to the above situation. Me, personally, I would apply to D, first, and if it 'offends', then I would apply C. If we watched everything we said because it might offend one or a few, we'd have nothing to say.

And, might I ask, why I'm being told how to speak/what to say? I'm not a barbie doll, and I don't have buttons where you can input something and expect an exact output..."You, you're speaking wrong. You're not saying it right. Say it how it should be (according to me)"

Seriously, are you that clueless? You're not the first person to ever be misunderstood, you know--it's only happened a bazillion times on the DIS. Really, when you offend people, even unintentionally, you should just own it and say sorry, my fault for not being clear, not blame other people for "misreading" your very own words because they're not your friends in real life. Unless, of course, you're not sorry at all.

 

[declansdad]

Actually this discussion was not going along just fine. There were accusations all over the place. But, that is part of a discussion board discussion. There will be misunderstandings and off-topic discussions. This isn't a moderated political debate. This is not the Mclaughlin group. If people want to be taken seriously and have their opinions discussed then when they make a mistake they should apologize.

At one point yesterday there were even posts about consensus. I am not saying that people need to agree but post after post focussed on one person does not move along the debate. This thread went about 10 pages or so without resulting to name calling or attacks.

Just my opinion.

 

[Laura]

I one point yesterday there were even posts about consensus. I am not saying that people need to agree but post after post focussed on one person does not move along the debate. This thread went about 10 pages or so without resulting to name calling or attacks.

Just my opinion.

No, I agree. I think most people, whether or not they like abortion (well, who likes abortion?), realize why it's legal in this country. Preventing unwanted pregnancies as much as possible is the best way to prevent abortion and make every child a wanted child. It will always be necessary in some cases, but I think people can understand the reasons for those cases.

 

[LuvDuke]

No, I agree. I think most people, whether or not they like abortion (well, who likes abortion?), realize why it's legal in this country. Preventing unwanted pregnancies as much as possible is the best way to prevent abortion and make every child a wanted child. It will always be necessary in some cases, but I think people can understand the reasons for those cases.

And that is the mainstream position of over 60% of the American public. The poll that started this thread is an accurate representation of the American consensus over abortion.

Truly, if Roe v Wade is overturned, which I believe the Supreme Court is just itching to do, it will be a disaster for the Republican rightwing. It will be an even bigger disaster for the religious right. In a strange way, I wish Roe v Wade would be overturned. Let's get it out in the open. Let's have the open war (figuratively speaking) that's been going on covertly in this country. Let's settle it once and forever. Not that some faction won't crawl out from under the rock in another generation or 2.

It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.

 

[JMD]

Truly, if Roe v Wade is overturned, which I believe the Supreme Court is just itching to do, it will be a disaster for the Republican rightwing.

Why would this be a disaster for Republicans? Seriously, I'm not being argumentative.

 

[SandraVB79]

It's rather sad that a person seeking some attention draws the attention away from the topic...

 

[Fitswimmer]

And that is the mainstream position of over 60% of the American public. The poll that started this thread is an accurate representation of the American consensus over abortion.

Truly, if Roe v Wade is overturned, which I believe the Supreme Court is just itching to do, it will be a disaster for the Republican rightwing. It will be an even bigger disaster for the religious right. In a strange way, I wish Roe v Wade would be overturned. Let's get it out in the open. Let's have the open war (figuratively speaking) that's been going on covertly in this country. Let's settle it once and forever. Not that some faction won't crawl out from under the rock in another generation or 2.

It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.

I think that's why some people support it being overturned. I had a Constitutional law professor in college that was FAR from right wing who felt that Roe was simply bad law. His opinion had nothing to do with abortion rights, he just said it was bad legal work.

It would be a disaster for the religious right and might just finish them as a force in politics-not a bad thing in my book. The majority of people in the country favor keeping abortion legal even though some may want more restrictions than others. If the religious right tries to go for a complete ban they'll get destroyed.

I'm a fairly devout Catholic whose faith means a LOT to me and I am completely disgusted by the linking up of religion and politics. I've said MANY times on this board that I want politics out of religon and religion out of politics, the mixing of the two is not good for the country.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Why would this be a disaster for Republicans? Seriously, I'm not being argumentative.

The majority supports it being legal. Pro-life is a very small minority. In fact very tiny. That is the Republican mantra....they prey on pro-lifers to support them due to their "cause of abolishing abortion".

If the majority does not like abortion overturned they MAY actually do something.
Although at this point, I am not holding my breath.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I'm a fairly devout Catholic whose faith means a LOT to me and I am completely disgusted by the linking up of religion and politics. I've said MANY times on this board that I want politics out of religon and religion out of politics, the mixing of the two is not good for the country.

OK...I agree with you.

However I want to address something...The Pope has condemned the Iraq War.
If the American Catholic Churches DARE to say vote Republican...I am done forever.
In St. Louis we have the fortune to get a jerky Archbishop who clearly stated that he would NOT give Kerry communion because he is pro choice, back in the day.
Basically the Catholic church tells you to vote Republican.
The Pope has condemned the Repubs...this will tell me if this is politics or are the Priests going to follow the Pope.

 

[Fitswimmer]

OK...I agree with you.

However I want to address something...The Pope has condemned the Iraq War.
If the American Catholic Churches DARE to say vote Republican...I am done forever.
In St. Louis we have the fortune to get a jerky Archbishop who clearly stated that he would NOT give Kerry communion because he is pro choice, back in the day.
Basically the Catholic church tells you to vote Republican.
The Pope has condemned the Repubs...this will tell me if this is politics or are the Priests going to follow the Pope.

In all my adult life attending Mass I have NEVER had a priest tell me to vote for a specific candidate or even a specific party. Yes, the Priests will discuss the Catholic teaching on social issues, but I've never been told that I should vote one way or the other.

As far as the Communion thing, why would someone who has rejected Catholic teaching want to receive Communion anyway? I've never really understood that. If I'm going to receive, I need to be in a state of grace and aligned with Church teaching. If I had in any way directly enabled someone so that they could commit a serious sin, I would not be able to receive communion worthily. I would have to go to confession and resolve not to commit that serious sin again. If I go right back out and keep doing it, then my contrition was false. If I disagreed so fundamentally with the teaching of the Church that I could not consistently obey it, and enabled others to disobey it as well, then I wouldn't be Catholic anymore. Family members and friends have left for reasons of conscience and I completely respect that.

If a Catholic politician has made it easier for someone else to commit a sin, then he/she would be in the same position. I don't believe in abortion, I've never had one and I've never directly assisted in anyone else having one either. I also haven't directly assisted in sending anyone off to Iraq. Sure, my taxes are funding it, but I didn't cast a vote to go to war.

It seems that some Catholic politicians like being Catholic when they're getting contributions at the Knights of Columbus dinner, but they're pretty ready to renounce Church teaching when they head over to the NOW meeting.

 

[alldiz]

OK...I agree with you.

However I want to address something...The Pope has condemned the Iraq War.
If the American Catholic Churches DARE to say vote Republican...I am done forever.
In St. Louis we have the fortune to get a jerky Archbishop who clearly stated that he would NOT give Kerry communion because he is pro choice, back in the day.
Basically the Catholic church tells you to vote Republican.
The Pope has condemned the Repubs...this will tell me if this is politics or are the Priests going to follow the Pope.

Dosen't it go against the church to talk politics....
I thought priests, pastors..etc COULD NOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE...

If they do.....they should start paying taxes....and stop
hiding behind the robe if they want to talk politics.
Kerri

 

[mickeyfan2]

And that is the mainstream position of over 60% of the American public. The poll that started this thread is an accurate representation of the American consensus over abortion.

Truly, if Roe v Wade is overturned, which I believe the Supreme Court is just itching to do, it will be a disaster for the Republican rightwing. It will be an even bigger disaster for the religious right. In a strange way, I wish Roe v Wade would be overturned. Let's get it out in the open. Let's have the open war (figuratively speaking) that's been going on covertly in this country. Let's settle it once and forever. Not that some faction won't crawl out from under the rock in another generation or 2.

It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.

I don't see why it would be a disaster. Please explain.

I am pro others having the option of a legal abortion, but I have never had one and at this stage in my life I don't see myself needing one.

That said, if the SCOTUS overturned Roe vs Wade it would revert to a state issue. Many states have abortion laws on their books. Some make abortion legal, some make it illegal and some never passed any laws after the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[LuvDuke]

Why would this be a disaster for Republicans? Seriously, I'm not being argumentative.

Because it's the Republican party that's pandered to the religious right. It's the Republican party who's platform has reflected that pandering. You can't walk away from 25 years of history. Republicans have been peddling their "pro-life" credentials to energize the religious right base. The mainstream hasn't been too concerned because Roe v Wade has been the ace-in-the-hole which has also been the same ace-in-the-hole for the Republican party.

Do you honestly think if Roe v Wade is overturned, 2 generations are going to accept the loss of privacy, which they have grown up thinking was a right, with a "damn those Democrats". Ahhh, no.

Plus, now all the phony Republican "pro-lifers" are to going to have to face the mainstream. It'll be a helluva show. The last thing Republicans want is to fight the privacy battle through 50 states. They would be forced to do an about face. Not a pretty sight.

 

[LuvDuke]

The majority supports it being legal. Pro-life is a very small minority. In fact very tiny. That is the Republican mantra....they prey on pro-lifers to support them due to their "cause of abolishing abortion".

If the majority does not like abortion overturned they MAY actually do something.
Although at this point, I am not holding my breath.

Isn't it amazing how some people really believe overturning Roe v Wade and banning abortion is NOT a Republican campaign issue?

I want to see the Republicans fight the battle state by all 50 states. I want to see the Republicans either do a 180 or face a very angry mainstream. They've set themselves up for a lose-lose.

 

[JMD]

Isn't it amazing how some people really believe overturning Roe v Wade and banning abortion is NOT a Republican campaign issue?

I'm not arguing whether or not its a Republican campaign issue, it certainly is. I just don't understand your reasoning for saying it would be a disaster. I would see it as a major victory for the Republicans. Personally, I don't think this something the federal government should even be involved in, and as Fitswimmer already mentioned, Roe v Wade is just bad law.

Personally, I would much rather see it be decided in all 50 states and accept that outcome, then have to live with Roe v. Wade.