Abortion rights activists were unhappy with the president’s comments, as millions of people are being denied access to abortion care in nearly half the country.
Abortion rights activists were unhappy with the president’s comments, as millions of people are being denied access to abortion care in nearly half the country.
I don’t really have a problem with the president saying “I don’t personally like abortion, but I still stand by a woman’s right to choose”. I’m a staunch atheist and I would much rather work with that style of Christian than the ones who want to force others to follow their own insane rules.
Yeah, he’s entitled to his own opinion, so long as he does the will of the American people.
This is actually the type of president we should want. As long as they can do that in all aspects, that is.
Right? Like one who sets the example “I may disagree but my personal opinions aren’t law”
Too many politicians nowadays conflate the two
It’s not a huge deal but why preface it though? All you have to say is “Roe vs Wade was the correct decision and a woman has the right to choose”
I’m “big on abortion” because it’s a human right and I like human rights. And it doesn’t really matter if a cis man is “big on abortion” because these laws will never affect him and his body. He’s just trying to appeal to Christians because Christians control so much of this country 🤮
I’m pro-choice but I’ve heard this and many similar things said and it’s such a ridiculous thing to say.
“It doesn’t really matter what you think about inhumane treatment for XYZ medical condition because you’re not a doctor and you don’t have that condition”
“It doesn’t matter what you think about banning this important subset of knowledge in K-12 education because you’ve already aged out”
Believe it or not, things can affect you even if they’re not directly happening to you. People don’t exist in a vacuum.
Disregarding someone’s opinion has never once changed someone’s opinion.
“Big on abortion” in this situation means “other women can have abortions but I wouldn’t choose to”
But he will never be pregnant and never need an abortion, so of course he will never have to choose to have an abortion. The only people whose opinion matters when someone needs an abortion is the pregnant person and their doctor. Plenty of people who were “not big on abortion” ended up getting an abortion when it affected them.
You are allowed to have an opinion sure, but your opinion is irrelevant when it comes down to the decision because it’s a healthcare decision. Do you want to have to take every other person’s opinion into account whenever you make a medical decision? I highly doubt you would make the same argument if this applied to your medical decisions.
What if I want to take a medical treatment that doctors and I agree will save my life if you personally think it’s inhumane? I should just fuck off and not get a choice despite what doctors and I think are in my best interest? I’m on birth control for medical issues and plenty of people think it has too many side effects to be legal, why should they get to decide because they had a bad experience when it has worked for me?
What if I don’t have a kid in your school, but show up to a school board meeting with all my friends to say teaching kids math is inhumane and it needs to be removed from the curriculum? People are doing that RIGHT NOW near me, mandating the removal of pride flags and banning the use of kids preferred pronouns. Do they have kids in the school district? No. It’s a bunch of people from a mega church near by being told to do this by their pastor. But according to you, they should be respected.
Comparing it to inhumane medical treatments highlight your true feelings on the subject.
He’s Catholic. If you can’t see that to mean “I see abortion as similar to taking a life” then there’s no reason for me to read the rest of your wall of text.
You can’t get elected by being honest, really. The optimal president is one who appeals to the most common middle ground with as many people as possible (single issue voters notwithstanding). He’s hoping to acknowledge moderate Christians who, having perfectly valid opinions on abortion, disagreed with overturning major Supreme Court decisions on culture war activists. Moderates are the only people who you can move on the ballot, sadly.
trying to appeal? is it not possible for him to really believe it?
Was thinking the same thing and saw that you had it covered. “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it at all” seems like the kind of shit his old ass would gripe about. So sick of these “moderate Dems” trying to poach votes from the right. Anyone trying to build long term stability or a cohesive path to progress wouldn’t be inviting these fucks into their “big tent.”
edited, because I forgot to say: Us pizzas know whats up.
To be fair, most Christians are that style.
I’m not sure where you live but I’m in the bible belt and almost every single Christian I’ve heard speak about the issue (people are very vocal about religion here) has said that abortion is murder and they do not approve of women having the ability to choose to end a life for any reason.
The northeast has a lot of people who fall into that camp.
As a Christian, I have to say that I don’t see any medically unnecessary situation where abortion isn’t murder. You are ending the life of another human being for your own convenience.
That said, I realize that as a community we can’t get rid of abortion. It’s a very complex problem with no good single solution. Not only is it necessary that people have painless access for when it is unfortunately necessary, but it’s also not correct for us as Christians to force our convictions on others. All we can do is to try our best to make situations where abortions are desired (but not needed) as infrequent as possible. That means good prenatal care, good familial and financial education, proper sex education (and I mean real sex education, not just “don’t have sex” - you can’t stop humans from doing human things), etc.
I’m a pastor and I can tell you that modern theology on abortion was largely fabricated in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Even the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Evangelical denominations called abortion a “distinctly Catholic issue”. The cause for the change of consensus between 1973 and 1977, but the point being the largest pro-life organization in America took years to become outraged. If the Bible were as clear cut as they pretend, then they should have been marching on day 1.
What does the Bible say about abortion? The only time it discusses it is in Numbers 5:11-31, known as the Drought of Bitter Waters. Essentially if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant due to an affair, a priest administers a drink of bitter waters. There’s some debate over whether this drink is legitimately harmful and God supernaturally protects the innocent or it is perfectly harmless and God supernatural punishes the guilty, but it doesn’t really matter as the result is the same: The termination of the pregnancy.
If a fetus is a fully developed human life, then an innocent is being executed for the crimes of another. That’s a pretty horrific conclusion, but that’s obviously not the perspective of the audience of the day.
So how did the Biblical audience view the notion of when life began?
This gets a little tricky as we’re essentially asking when does a person have a soul. For much of the European church history, this moment was called ensoulment and happened when the mother first felt the cold kick. This specific moment was also known as the quickening. Most evangelicals now argue that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception.
The problem is that ensoulment isn’t actually a Christian idea at all, rather it’s Greek and Roman. Unfortunately, a lot of how Christian’s think isn’t due to the Bible but because of a rather interesting fella named Plotinus and his philosophy known as neo-platonism.
Speaking broadly, in neo-platonism, the soul is the true essence of a person and it is immortal and eternal. The soul inhabits a body and lives a life of good or evil that determines its eternal destination, heaven or hell.
Sound familiar?
In Judaism and therefore Christianity, people don’t have an immortal soul. You will find no verse in the Bible that discusses an eternal spiritual essence. The Bible explicitly notes that we were forbidden the tree of eternal life.
Jews did not believe in going to heaven when you die, they believed in a blessed hope known as the resurrection of the dead. A time when all who died would arise again to face judgment, the righteous would never taste death again and the world would be set to rights.
Even in Jesus’s day, this wasn’t a universally held belief, however. The Pharisees held to the resurrection, while the Sadducees believed that death was final and permanent.
But the words Soul and Spirit occur all throughout the Bible, you may be thinking. Yes, but that’s more an artifact of translation and cultural appropriation. In Hebrew, spirit is “ruach” and can be translated roughly as breath or wind. Soul is “nephesh” and literally means throat.
In Jewish thought, and therefore Christian thought, a person becomes a living being when they breathe.
The real kicker in all this is that the church rejected a lot of Jewish thought and leaned into Greek and Roman thought because of antisemitism.
The best argument for the Southern Baptist Convention’s pivot on this issue? Probably racism as well. Integration in public schools caused a massive surge in private Christian schools, which could segregate under the guise of religious liberty.
While the Supreme Court ultimately decided against Bob Jones University in the early 80’s, it was only after a 13 year battle with the IRS and lower courts. By the late 70’s, it became clear that the final bastion of racial segregation, Christian education, was going to fall.
Racism had been a hugely potent force for turning out evangelicals to vote and with these final court cases, the voting block was no longer motivated or unified. Abortion was one of several issues workshopped by Jerry Falwell and lesser-known, but not less-influential, Paul Weyrich and first floated in the 1978 midterms with tremendous success.
It finally became an issue with national attention in 1980 and the theology of life beginning at conception was largely solidified in place.
All that to say, if you want to believe life begins at conception, that’s fine. But you can’t pretend that’s ever been a commonly held perspective. Throughout much of church history it was the quickening and when the Bible was written, it was almost certainly at first breath.
Interesting, pastor W.A. Criswell, the former president of the southern baptist convention agreed with that notion in 1974. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
I kind of hate it.
The only understandable reason to oppose abortion is if you think it’s murder. I hate that stance, but I understand it
If you don’t think it’s murder, why have a problem with it? If you do think it’s murder, how couldn’t you actively oppose it!?
Like, if Biden thinks it’s murder, he can’t just say “but it’s still a woman’s choice”. Murder isn’t a right. If it’s murder then you have to fight it with everything you have, or you’re complicit.
It’s a contradictory stance.