So, in the case of a pregnancy where the fetus is killing the mother, since the fetus is a full human and subject to the full extent of human law, the mother must be protected from it. The authors you reference were perfectly OK with capital punishment without due process, so it would be reasonable, under their rationale, for an appropriately trained individual to remove the fetus from the woman to protect her from it, even if that removal meant making it unviable.
In your example, the fetus is an invader that has not just entered the woman’s home but her body, with the intent to kill her.
Also down with slavery and polygamy, murder of the unbelievers… child abuse, child marriage… rape, genocide, etc, many things we’ve decided that aren’t in line with our modern morality. Maybe attempting to live precisely by a set of books written 2000 years ago isn’t a great idea… maybe it’s better to see them as morality tales to be discussed, chewed over, and then lessons applied in a way that make sense to our modern context.
That’s rather appropriate, as the story of Matilda centred around the title character trying to escape from her horrible relatives.
And being a lot smarter than them.
The Didache was considered spurious by the early church fathers and was not included in the New Testament- it was lost for many centuries and a copy only found in in 1879.
I’m not sure what it would have to do with abortion in early American history as it wasn’t even known then.
And it’s relationship to Christian orthodoxy is pretty clear by its excision from the Bible by church fathers.
I wonder what Pythagoras’s bastard nephew had to say on the subject?
How cool would it be to see a gathering of fascist goons dispatched by a woman with telekinetic powers? It could be a great Carrie sequel.
Gonna disagree with you there. It was simple ad hominem in rapid fire to force the other person on the defence, a childish tactic to be honest. If anything, audio delay was something he ignored, jumping straight into character assassination and Orwellian usage of the word “science” as an Appeal to Authority fallacy
It was just a showboater whose show backfired and revealed just how his so-called intellect is a mere gimmick.
Before that, even. As I said upthread, forcing a person ¹ to carry to term will kill people. So those assholes can save the holier-than-thou shit.
¹ Using this instead of “women” because some men and non-binary people have uteruses too, and the same conditions are being forced on them, with the added benefit (which also applies to those with mental illness but does not imply that gender non-conformity is mental illness) of having to stop any medications or treatments that might harm those “precious” cells, regardless of the harm that stopping will do to the already living human.
It’s unnecessary cruelty all the way down.
Mara Wilson is doing the same thing.
I suppose that would be ignorant. Of course, that’s not what I said. What I said was that until the 80s American evangelicals weren’t too worked up about abortions.
I’m sure you went to read the piece I linked to.
they were linked from the post you originally replied to when you first got here
pretty sure pretending to refute an article you haven’t read is “ignorant”
Actually it’s a lot more nuanced than that, for the same reasons we don’t consider the killing of fully grown individuals in many circumstances to be murder.
recently canceled, unfortunately
It’s super easy to find scholars speaking about early Christian thought, and how the church handled various sins and the weight they gave to them. The mentioning of a sin does not mean it was considered the gravest of sins, especially from a time when nothing about pregnancy was understood at all because medical science wasn’t there. As such, abortion was considered by and large a general sexual sin and become mentioned with frequency after celibacy was introduced formally to Christianity - the same time any device to prevent pregnancy was considered a sin because sex was for procreation.
You don’t exactly see evangelicals advocating for people to eat corn flakes and regularly use enemas along side pro-life rallies.
I don’t think they employ mason since he became a paid up labour member but my point was about how shapiro did not do the bare minimum of research to know that neil is a tory through and through.
As for BBC bias, it’s curious how they allowed farage to vomit out his bigoted bile on question time but have I got news for you was pulled at the last minute because Heidi Allen from change UK was a guest on there.
This isn’t a case of “what’s your favourite colour? Tell me, and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.”
It’s a tad more serious than that.
