des Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 I don't know but lately I have noticed a bit more interest in talking about sin among liberal/progressives than say 5-10 years ago. Not sure if this is the result of books that have talked about how shy liberals were on the term or what, the feeling that we had better deal with it, or ... I don't think liberal/progressives generally buy the concept of original sin, but that leaves in less imaginative varieties :-). (haha get it "original" sin :-)) Also I don't think we would generally agree that all things conservatives say are sins are (like homosexuality). But that still leaves many things left! I'm, say, more likely to label destruction of the environment as sinful than a conservative, I think. Btw, Borg (and some other more progressive types) have talked about the "fall" but not as sin per se, but as "separation". I think he has some interest comments on sin and the use of the word. I don't think though that you would ever have a progressive/liberal pastor point out the sin of individuals in the congregation (at least in public) as I have heard of done in some conservative churches. But that has more, i think, to do with the place of the pastor in a liberal church. Prog. run churches differently and tend not to see the pastor as the chief and above others. Prog, churches tend to be run more egalitarianly (btw my fundie sister didnt' think this was such a bad thing!). OTOH, our church fired its last pastor for adultery with a member of the congregation. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surattius Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 iveseenthings.wav This is a very good topic for debate. Like Curlytop, I am a Catholic woman. I am blessed with two children, and after having the first one, and holding him, my whole life suddenly made sense, and my whole life was in the past as I was now living only for my son. And this was good. However, I am a mature woman, and it is easy for me to accept the loss of my own life as an independent individual. I had many years of 'freedom' and 'selfishness'. I have established my career. I am powerful. At a younger age, I was terrified of becoming pregnant with either my husband, or after my divorce, with my boyfriend. Terrified. If I had become pregnant during those uncertain years, where I was not in a 'safe' place to have a child and raise him/her, I might have considered an abortion. Okay, to the arguments presented: The idea of a reproductively responsible civilization, wherein we avoid sex until we want children, is possibly more appealing to women than men. However, let us examine our record as human beings. Are we ever perfect? Realistically, can we achieve the high goals that we can ideate? I do not believe it possible, while still having a 'free' society where everyone makes his own choices. When does life begin? Mine began with the birth of my children, to some extent! LOL. Seriously. I have always, and I admit that this is simplistic, identified suffering as worse than death. For this reason, I would favour an abortion over birth to a life of suffering. For this reason, I can accept that before a new human's nervous system has developed and he can feel pain, that putting an end to that life should be legal. I suppose that I do not see a 4 week old fetus as the same as a 27 week old fetus. When is abortion okay? This talk about abortions should only be in the first trimester.. am I being naive? I thought you only COULD have an abortion in the first trimester except in the case of massive birth defects or chromosomal abnormalities? I don't know about rape or incest, but I think that there's a point of no return. Finally, my kids are both a little wonky in the spinal area but they're okay once they're braced or surgically fixed. When the doctors asked me if I was going to become pregnant again, implying that they could look for this disorder and offer me a chance to abort if the same thing were to happen again, the thought sent chills through me. I guess this means that knowing what I know, and how I love my sons, scoliosis and all, I value life much more than I did when I was younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherRog Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually war is still very much relevant to all of this. Fact: Every modern war has resulted in far more innocent civilians being killed than military combatants. This is a known reality and it is true even in the supposedly "surgically precise" war with Iraq that the U.S. just engaged in. When civilians have bombs/missles hurled at them and/or die due to starvation, it is NOT a case of "kill or be killed" as they have no ability to strike back at those who are causing their deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
String Theory Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 My suggestion is to eliminate abortions after the end of the 1st trimester (12 weeks) unless the following can be shown: rape, incest, birth defect, threat to the health of the mother. Yes, this alternative would be uncomfortable for pro-lifers and pro-choicers. It would also be prefereable to both groups than the other group's demands. I think both sides could live with this option and it would be for the common good. Thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A couple of things, one a trimester is 14 week. And here are some statistics you may find interesting. From Planned Parenthood site Between 1990 and 1997, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1,429,577 to 1,186,039 (CDC, 2000). The CDC estimates that 55 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2000). As far as I know NO state allows for 2nd trimester abortions on demand, there are criteria which need to be met ( mother's health, rape, incest etc.) and those limits become even more restrictive after the 20th week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
String Theory Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 t's impossible for the courts to be neutral in this case. By ruling that the unborn do not deserve protection, the courts have imposed one group's beliefs on another group, namely, the unborn. Allowing people to "act on their own beliefs" implicitly states that one group's desires trumps all else. Which is fine if the unborn really aren't deserving of protection, but disastrous if they are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All the Court and the law can do is make sure each person has the right to make whatever choice is right for them. There is no Biblical reference prohibiting abortion, in fact there was no legal penalty unless the mother was injured and then the damages were awarded the husband. The rights of the unborn potential should never ever trump the rights of the already born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeInChrist Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 (edited) Abortion will go away when . . . When every child is wanted, when every family has the the resouces to raise their childeren, when violence against women has ceased . . . Sister Joan Chestecher (sp?) did an interview with Bill Moyer which I really liked. She said that the "pro-life" movement was not so much pro-life as pro-birth. If the people who are pro-life are willing to financially and spiritually support the fetus until they are of age they have a point. If not, what they are spouting is bullsh**. Edited May 16, 2005 by ComradeInChrist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Abortion will go away when . . . When every child is wanted, when every family has the the resouces to raise their childeren, when violence against women has ceased . . . Great thought! A progressive stance on abortion does not mean we're asking for the freedom to kill fetuses. I would love nothing more than the end of the abortion era, and the dawning of an age where every conceived child can enter the world and be cared for as they deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 The problem with the abortion debate is that the wrong questions are being asked. The question we should be asking is what can we do to eliminate the need for abortion? Even if abortion became illegal it would still happen (as it has since the beginning of time). I think that an unwanted pregnancy is a no-win situation. From what I can gather women (I use the term loosely because in some cases they are under the age of 15) who are forced to take a pregnancy to full term and deliver a baby and either take care of it or place it for adoption have many issues of guilt as do women who terminate a pregnancy. The secret is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We should be headed in that direction. Then the only abortions that would be needed would be for ones where the pregnancy was not viable (ie tubal or other instances where the mother and fetus will both (all) die if it not terminated. Side note: The problem with stopping abortion after the first trimester except in case of rape or incest is how do you determine that it was a rape or incest? I guess incest could be done through DNA testing, but rape is more tricky as there is not always the physical trauma of force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Sister Joan Chestecher (sp?) did an interview with Bill Moyer which I really liked. She said that the "pro-life" movement was not so much pro-life as pro-birth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. When people claim that Bush is pro-life I have to laugh. He is pro-fetus he doesn't give a damn after you are born! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.