Abortion

[Higgenbotham]

If your medieval superstitions are stronger than your belief in democracy, so be it.

Maybe his spiritual sensibilities are stronger than his belief in mob rule.

Are you equating the Constitution and rule of law with mob rule?

No, I am mirroring your obtuse and incorrect use of language.

[Bob Butler]

Maybe his spiritual sensibilities are stronger than his belief in mob rule.

Are you equating the Constitution and rule of law with mob rule?

No, I am mirroring your obtuse and incorrect use of language.

Was abortion not a sin in medieval times? How is my language incorrect? Did you really have trouble with the meaning?

[Higgenbotham]

Are you equating the Constitution and rule of law with mob rule?

No, I am mirroring your obtuse and incorrect use of language.

Was abortion not a sin in medieval times? How is my language incorrect? Did you really have trouble with the meaning?

You're using phrases that obviously you either do not understand the meaning of or are purposely using to create false impressions. This is on the back of your persistent accusations that other posters or politics that they are aligned with are lying or liars. The phrase "medieval superstition" that you continue to disparagingly throw out, has a specific meaning that even people like me who aren't as intimately familiar with religion as many other posters here understand.

[Bob Butler]

No, I am mirroring your obtuse and incorrect use of language.

Was abortion not a sin in medieval times? How is my language incorrect? Did you really have trouble with the meaning?

You're using phrases that obviously you either do not understand the meaning of or are purposely using to create false impressions. This is on the back of your persistent accusations that other posters or politics that they are aligned with are lying or liars. The phrase "medieval superstition" that you continue to disparagingly throw out, has a specific meaning that even people like me who aren't as intimately familiar with religion as many other posters here understand.

They call themselves pro life, but most of them are carnivores, killers. They could call themselves pro sentient, but then they would have to come up with a criteria by which a fetus is sentient but a commonly killed meat animal is not. They could call themselves pro soul, but then they would have to prove souls exist, that they can be scientifically detected, that they are not blindly following a superstition as old or older than medieval times.

The distinction is between what something is and what it might become someday. The only difference between the two is an unprovable medieval superstition. Should the government enforce a religious doctrine with the power of the state? Should a democratic government go against the will of the majority? Obviously no to both. They are hypocrites. I am just making this clear.

[Higgenbotham]

Was abortion not a sin in medieval times? How is my language incorrect? Did you really have trouble with the meaning?

You're using phrases that obviously you either do not understand the meaning of or are purposely using to create false impressions. This is on the back of your persistent accusations that other posters or politics that they are aligned with are lying or liars. The phrase "medieval superstition" that you continue to disparagingly throw out, has a specific meaning that even people like me who aren't as intimately familiar with religion as many other posters here understand.

They call themselves pro life, but most of them are carnivores, killers. They could call themselves pro sentient, but then they would have to come up with a criteria by which a fetus is sentient but a commonly killed meat animal is not. They could call themselves pro soul, but then they would have to prove souls exist, that they can be scientifically detected, that they are not blindly following a superstition as old or older than medieval times.

The distinction is between what something is and what it might become someday. The only difference between the two is an unprovable medieval superstition. Should the government enforce a religious doctrine with the power of the state? Should a democratic government go against the will of the majority? Obviously no to both. They are hypocrites. I am just making this clear.

Back to the topic at hand, which is the discussion of the phrase "medieval superstition."

Generally, what you have been doing is pointing at something and proclaiming, "See that thing over there? That is a medieval superstition," without showing any basis for saying so. I'm guessing it's a phrase you picked up from some radical pro-abortion leftists and it sounded good to you, so you adopted it.

An example of a typical "medieval superstition" might be ritual sacrifice to appease the gods as practiced by pagans based on the superstition of deriving some benefit from the sacrifice. There was a news article about something like that a few years ago where a neo-pagan sacrificed a goat right here in the US. You seem to want to equate the enduring belief that a human has a soul to something like that. It's not convincing.

As documented not too long ago, the second significant comment I made on this forum about abortion, in 2019, 11 years after my first significant comment, was as follows:

The top executives of more than 180 companies have signed a letter that says abortion is essential in order for people to be successful in their businesses.

Reminds me a few years ago Pelosi said food stamps are keeping this economy going. Now we see that top executives of more than 180 companies agree that abortions are keeping this economy going. One reason would probably be that abortion is cheaper for their health care costs than encouraging an employee to take a pregnancy to full term. It begs the question of whether pregnant employees are pressured to have abortions at these (and other) firms and, if so, how that fits into their definition of equality. Just putting your name on such a letter is a form of pressure.

When you want to issue demands for abortion for the purpose of making sacrifices to the gods of materialism and corporate profits that sounds an awful lot like pagan ritual sacrifice to appease the gods based on the superstition of deriving some benefit. Based on that, making demands for abortion so you can harvest more corporate profits when it really will not do anything like that in the long run is closer to a "medieval superstition" than the enduring belief that a human has a soul.

[Bob Butler]

When you want to issue demands for abortion for the purpose of making sacrifices to the gods of materialism and corporate profits that sounds an awful lot like pagan ritual sacrifice to appease the gods based on the superstition of deriving some benefit. Based on that, making demands for abortion so you can harvest more corporate profits when it really will not do anything like that in the long run is closer to a "medieval superstition" than the enduring belief that a human has a soul.

I have never heard of a god of materialism or corporate profits. You are mixing modern and ancient thought. As a result you can leap to any conclusion you like. Medieval superstition dealt with concepts like gods, souls, sin and sacrifice. Modern thought deals more with rights, rule of the majority and freedom of choice. Forcing modern thinkers to follow medieval superstition is not suggested by the Constitution. You cannot declare a white doctrine and force other cultures and mindsets to follow it.

In this case, you will simply be outvoted. As I have suggested earlier, go for it. Please. It assures a Democratic Congress.

[Guest]

When you want to issue demands for abortion for the purpose of making sacrifices to the gods of materialism and corporate profits that sounds an awful lot like pagan ritual sacrifice to appease the gods based on the superstition of deriving some benefit. Based on that, making demands for abortion so you can harvest more corporate profits when it really will not do anything like that in the long run is closer to a "medieval superstition" than the enduring belief that a human has a soul.

I have never heard of a god of materialism or corporate profits.

How about Madonna?

[Bob Butler]

When you want to issue demands for abortion for the purpose of making sacrifices to the gods of materialism and corporate profits that sounds an awful lot like pagan ritual sacrifice to appease the gods based on the superstition of deriving some benefit. Based on that, making demands for abortion so you can harvest more corporate profits when it really will not do anything like that in the long run is closer to a "medieval superstition" than the enduring belief that a human has a soul.

I have never heard of a god of materialism or corporate profits.

How about Madonna?

Which one? The virgin is an almost sorta goddess. The singer is a rockstar. They don't muddle together very well. They do kind of exemplify the medieval and modern ideals of what a woman should be I suppose. They show how expecting the two worldviews to play well together wouldn't be expected. Trying to force one to be the other doesn't work very well.

[Higgenbotham]

When you want to issue demands for abortion for the purpose of making sacrifices to the gods of materialism and corporate profits that sounds an awful lot like pagan ritual sacrifice to appease the gods based on the superstition of deriving some benefit. Based on that, making demands for abortion so you can harvest more corporate profits when it really will not do anything like that in the long run is closer to a "medieval superstition" than the enduring belief that a human has a soul.

I have never heard of a god of materialism or corporate profits.

Watch the first 3 minutes of this video and then you will have.

https://youtu.be/1ihaSK44zeA?t=144
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ihaSK44zeA&t=182s

[spottybrowncow]

Some recognize no higher power than themselves, except for the collective will (51% of the voters?). They are pathetic.
Of course, as humans, we are all pathetic. I throw my lot in with the humans who realize that, and yet humbly try to do better.