It started with the RCC which has a policy against all forms of family planning. It's not about "life", it's about controlling sexuality, which the RCC does through guilt and other nefarious methods. Protestants just picked up the baton so the RCC doesn't have a monopoly on self-righteousness.

If so, the history of American RCC on abortion startled me

For most mid-century American Catholics, opposing abortion followed the same logic as supporting social programs for the poor and creating a living wage for workers. Catholic social teachings, outlined in documents such as the 19th-century encyclical Rerum novarum, argued that all life should be preserved, from conception until death, and that the state has an obligation to support this cause. “They believed in expanded pre-natal health insurance, and in insurance that would also provide benefits for women who gave birth to children with disabilities,” Williams said. They wanted a streamlined adoption process, aid for poor women, and federally funded childcare. Though Catholics wanted abortion outlawed, they also wanted the state to support poor women and families."

More here The Progressive Roots of the Pro-Life Movement https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

I'll give the Pope a little credit for at least being consistent; he also opposes the death penalty and supports anti-poverty initiatives. But the evangelicals are generally in favor of the death penalty and have no interest in doing anything to help babies once they're born, or their mothers. Too poor to support a child? Sucks to be you, you gotta have it anyhow and you and the baby are on your own.

The reason the most recent legislation out of Alabama and other states was made so extreme was to make sure it would be challenged in court so the Supreme Court would (they hope) reverse Roe v. Wade. But previous legislation, however restrictive, has always included exceptions for rape, incest and the life or health of the woman. These exceptions were to make the bills politically palatable enough that they would be passed. But if you want to mess with an evangelical pro-lifer's head, ask them why those exceptions are OK if abortion is murder. The only possible answers can be either that not all abortions are murder or that some kinds of murder are OK. If all unborn embryos/fetuses are equally innocent, why is abortion not murder, or else an OK kind of murder, in some situations or not in others?

They're on a slippery slope and they know it; if abortion could be made illegal in all cases the laws would be completely untenable, so they have to be satisfied with making it illegal in as many cases as possible. But the reason clearly isn't because of the so-called sanctity of life (otherwise they'd insist all abortion is wrong); it's to control women's sexuality and limit their agency.

squirm from IRL and push our leaders to meet head-on by not just addressing women's rights, but firmly include the christo-fascist foundation of this ban.

Your first list of biblical references could be very useful, I think.

For me, it's worked to change or open a mind every now and then.

Don’t even assume they read it at all.

just listen to their preachers, who read whatever supports their prejudices.

You can find anything in the Bible. Or nothing.

verbatim. If you think the religious right is just ignorant you are fooling yourself.

...and reading the whole and comprehending.

And their comprehension is just as valid as yours.

Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

When can you start explaining to every other Christian on the planet why they're wrong?

Generally from the non-theists.

Ironic.

My experience is they read their Bibles especially for guidance. I don't assume that they're completely stupid because they interpret the Bible differently.

are subject to interpretation and can be interpreted to support any belief on any subject.

The point is this Christian God is proven in many instances not to give a damn about pregnant women and unborn children. And here's some of the undeniable instances on the "Scriptural truths" list.

To me, that's not a loving and merciful God. The New testament shows what a loving and merciful God through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I love these words.

"There are 3,000 verses in the Bible that are concerned with social justice, taking care of the poor, the stranger, attitudes of kindness and compassion. It is dominant in the Old Testament and the New Testament and there is no ambiguity."

there is a written loop-hole.

And political fundamentalists have used them to their advantage adding meanings not there nor intended.

and ask about the words of Jesus. All of their loop-holes come from the OT and Paul. As Christians, John, Mathew, Luke and Mark should be their focus and the words of Jesus quoted by them.

The Essential Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, biblical scholar and a former Roman Catholic priest. The book gets right to the point(s) and so much easier to hold

...he can drag his ass to the ballots like the rest of us. Otherwise he should shut the fuck up and stay out of our business.

Why do you suppose that still hasn't happened after 2000 years?

How confident are you that you have interpreted it 100% correctly this time?

That there are those who will say it is all "METAPHOR" and can be safely ignored.

However, they never seem to say what ripping the unborn child out of it's mother's womb and killing the rest of the family, except the virgin girls whom they will enslave in marriage is a metaphor for. It's all pretty ghastly either way.

pretty ghastly. Too many of us here have had to bear the costs of these biblical metaphors used to weaponize the Constitution to protect only conservative Christians.

How do you know they're right?

Then stop saying other Christians are wrong.

All these people say the Bible is true*, but when pressed have tended to cherry-pick and selectively quote. Then we get the literalists who will say that some of it is metaphor and poetry, but that these are clearly signposted.

I have read the Bible from go to woe ( and so much woe) at least twice and have my own opinions on what was probably meant. Probably, being the important point.

The Bible was written for various audiences at various times then put together to establish a theocracy. We don't have the same understanding and assumptions, or even the knowledge of the peoples of the past who were the various audiences, so how can we say with any confidence what it was supposed to have meant.




*for a certain value of "True"

Nail on the head. We can't - yet there is no shortage of liberal believers who, while they may accept that statement on face value, are all too willing to turn around and condemn the "religious right" for not being Christians at all. I'm not sure if they recognize the contradiction.

Ancient books are not arcane treatises on 21st century political ideals.

You also claim to know what your god wants.

I find both of those things unnerving, even if your intentions are good.

abortion ban efforts in this country now has no scriptural or historical support that the procedure was a top priority. That's just a fact, not an interpretation. You can look up every one of the cited references from Exodus to Hosea to understand context but the point is this religious-political doctrine of sanctity of life at all cost - regardless of rape, incest or the life of the mother - has never been practiced as the extreme right wants to establish.

I cannot agree that the astronomical number of deaths and the destruction of the unborn, women, pregnant women and even animals "caused" by even the whim of a jealous god or wrathful god as just an interpretation.

As to claims of knowing what my "god wants," I don't know what you're talking about.

I find your mischaracterization of the OP unnerving because even if you think my intentions are good, I'm not sure of yours because it seems to be another iteration of tone and language policing with not much else to offer in this battle.

Actually it's got quite a bit of both.

But you get to classify your beliefs as "fact," and theirs as fiction. Just as they do to yours, oddly enough.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" is their basis for saying that the government shouldn't be involved in charity/healthcare/etc. You realize they really do have biblical backing for most of their beliefs, right? You certainly don't agree with their interpretation, but can you really declare them WRONG? Do you allow for the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong?

None that you've cared to cite.

"You certainly don't agree with their interpretation, but can you really declare them WRONG? Do you allow for the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong?"

I think you're missing the point that it's not about interpretation. Interpretation for religious freedom was settled in the First Amendment.

We can agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.