I believe it was tongue in cheek. We would save a lot if everyone didn’t go to the doctor and we healed with the power of prayer. The ultimate free market solution and makes replacing Obamacare super cheap and easy.
When it comes to this topic, I honestly never really know.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek on my part but it is the religious argument against abortion so to answer the kids with cancer question using that reasoning, yes, God is the reason why kids die of cancer. Everything happens for a reason even if we don’t know what it is. As far as treating it goes, some believe in prayer only, others that God will work (or choose to not work) through the doctors.
Of course some religious people believe in an indifferent God but that is neither scary nor comforting.
Sorry for the misread on your original comment.
It was a good question though. And I think it does relate to taxes since so many like to say this is a Christian nation. If we believe that life is precious because it is a creation of God, and taking life is an affront to God, then do we owe anything to our fellow creations of God?
1 Like
The good news is the tax cuts should provide less of
a burden to the multi millionaire pastors like Joel Osteen. With these creators having less money taken out it will all trickle down to the religious institution that pays no tax.
Er something like that.
There isn’t anything wrong with your phrasing. The science is settled.
I don’t care what you consider a person, depending on who you talk to, that definition could render half the mouth-breathers on Twitter not people.
You want an abortion, you have to be ok with killing a human being. That’s what it is and that fact is indisputable.
What about asking to give even more money to something that is already taking a shitload money out of someone 's income?
Especially, some thing that is historically inefficient and flawed. For crying out loud it costs $15 billion just to collect the money.
The science of genetics is settled. The implication of that science for issues such as abortion is not.
Yes I know, because it isn’t convenient for your pre-ordained views on the subject. But it’s a vital–indeed, dispositive–issue for many (most?) people when it comes to abortion.
That “fact” is only “indisputable” if one accepts your definitions of the term kill and human being. Per your definitions, and given recent advances in reproductive science, I suspect I could make the argument that you have to be OK with killing a human being in order to shave in the morning.
Remember @pat , we’ve defined his position. Where POC = Products of Conception:
All POC are human.
Not all POC are persons.
Therefore: not all humans are persons.
What could go wrong with a worldview like that?
1 Like
So long as one has the ability to distinguish among the various meanings of the word human–not much.
This cuts to the heart of the difference between the US right and left. The right sees every new life as limitless potential and the left sees it as a potential ward of the state (scarcity mindset). Remember that the right gives more to charity at every income level. They object to coerced “charity” and government programs that trap the poor rather than help them. How dare they.
Total US tax % is higher than the other G20 nations. We’re supposed to be the land of the free. At this point I’ll settle for the G20 average as a start.
The right also stresses personal responsibility. Maybe instead of “do whatever feels good” society could start pushing “don’t sleep with people you aren’t prepared to procreate with” and “take care of your children”.
Here’s the one thing that I can’t wrap my mind around. People tend to have similar political beliefs as their parents. Many abortions happen in Democratic areas. I posit that if Roe V wade never happened then Democrats would have had an untouchable supermajority uniparty by the 80’s or so. No Reagan, no Bush 1/Bush 2, no Newt , no Trump. You’ve gone and aborted millions of Democrats. Must be a Russian plot.
What is this based on exactly and how is charity defined? I have no idea and to be honest I don’t plan on digging in hard to study the topic. A quick google search brought these ideas up: " Hiltzik disputes this “received wisdom,” citing a 2013 paper by MIT political scientists Michele F. Margolis and Michael W. Sances that found that, for individuals, the “relationship between conservatism and giving vanishes after adjusting for income and religiosity.” In other words, conservatives are more likely to be wealthy and more likely to give to their churches than liberals.
Margolis and Sances also argue that, “At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare.”
Is donating to church a charitable donation? If it always is then of course conservatives would be more giving. After all they are typically the ones going to the little houses and giving money to Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland so those people can buy a new mansion 
The right sees every new life as limitless potential? As long as the child doesn’t grow up to be gay, transgender, Muslim, etc? Which side typically attacks food stamps and health care? We can surely talk about these things and I’m not saying they aren’t worthy of it but let’s be honest which side does it? I can get with you about trapping the poor, but someone has to feed the kids. Hard to see the limitless potential in a kid if they are starving. And I haven’t heard a good plan yet for the millions of kids I’ve talked about. The best way to avoid unintended pregnancies is contraception use. Guess which side preaches against and has people call it a sin? Probably a good reason why teenage pregnancy is highest in those good old Bible states.
States that are the best to raise kids are not found in the the limitless potential of conservative states: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/health/best-worst-states-children/index.html
The right stresses personal responsibility? Must not be very good at it. States with the highest teenage pregnancy, highest rates of federal government dependency, highest rates of food stamp usage are all pretty typical Republican strongholds.
I don’t consider myself a Democrat or Republican but some of the ideas that conservatives tout like personal responsibility and caring about kids don’t always add up with reality. Then again I’ve lived my entire life in Kansas where the examples of religious hypocrisy and small government lies are pretty endless.
3 Likes
I can agree with this. But then…got to do something with “those” kids…
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/congress-trump-defense-budget/index.html
This is totally false. It’s simply Republican propaganda. Is the Catholic Church right or left? It is against abortion as well as capital punishment.
I also doubt the right is against social programs that help/trap the poor because they actually care about the poor.
Yes, as observed by their personal lives.
I think, or rather I know, that you have confused being pro-choice with being pro-abortion.
1 Like
What do you mean? They care so much about kids they want to marry them.
I’m a broken record on this stuff throughout the years but if the right really wanted to limit the amount of abortions they would feverishly push contraceptive use. Condoms at schools in the nurses office, getting rid of abstinence only failed education, funding women getting on the pill etc. if the health of the mother is not in jeopardy then we know any abortion is from an unintended and unwanted pregnancy by its very nature. The very best way to limit this is through contraception bar none. Look at Romania for unintended consequences of getting rid of it
But God hates sex or somethingand pretty sure don’t be on the pill is in Genesis right?! It’s the first thing they look for at the pearly gates…you led a good life but you’re going to hell for that period you had the Nuva ring in.
Sex education, contraception, etc., work to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, so why are they against these things that work? Maybe it’s because the majority of women getting abortions are poor. Black women get abortions at a disproportionately higher rate. Making abortion illegal coupled with not teaching sex education or having accessible contraception is a way to keep poor people poor, particularly poor blacks. How else will we keep our prisons full?
If the right is all about personal responsibility then why does it not allow people, again poor people and especially poor blacks, the ability to take personal responsibility? Education gives people the tools to take personal responsibility. Giving them access to contraception is allowing them to take personal responsibility. Maybe the left keeps poor people down by giving them entitlements but the right keeps poor people down by fostering ignorance. The crazy thing is that some people think one side cares about the poor more than another. If they both cared then would we have a problem?
Control for religiosity huh? Control for the one factor that causes people to give more. Makes sense. Churches spend alot of money on the less fortunate.
No response to the fact that democrats keep aborting their bullet-proof majority? I guess that’s why they want illegals and anchor babies.
Also why does the government have to pay for the extra babies? If you’re able bodied enough to get pregnant, you’re able bodied enough to work. This goes for the guy and girl.
Fully on board with less defense spending. In the form of not having 800 military bases. We could probably get by with 400 and not even notice.
How complicated is birth control? You don’t need a PHD. Sex ed is taught, there’s google. Birth control is available to anyone with the cash. If you can’t afford it, maybe get your life together a bit before you seek out sexual partners. But libs want us to air drop BC everywhere. Condoms are free at planned parenthood and other places. BC is a stupid small copay. And yet, all these unwanted pregnancies.
The religious right isn’t telling people to get knocked up outside of marriage, people are doing that on their own. Somehow it’s their fault I’m sure.