If those kids could read they'd be very upset

im weak lol

"Christian Oppression"

Meaning persecution OF or BY (caps because I don't have italics, not yelling at you) Christians?

If the latter, then they're not true Christians.

They would disagree with you. Try to avoid the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

It's not a fallacy dude...you cannot oppress people and still be a faithful adherent to proper Catholic (OG Christian and my own Faith, everything else is an offshoot to varying degrees of legitimacy) doctrine, which clearly teaches that everyone deserves equal civil rights with NO exceptions to this rule.

By oppression, I refer to the save yourself or burn in hell, or, knocking on our doors like salesmen, or, voting on laws to favor Christian ideology, or the opportunistic nature priests/pastors have to spread the word. The Bible speaks on the notion that rapture cannot occur until everyone has been exposed to Christianity.

Granted you sound like a progressive Christian, I dig that. But the majority of Christians in this country aren't

I'm a rock solid traditional Catholic...the great thing about that though is we have long held in official doctrine that you can dislike and disagree with someone, they're still your brother or sister and you can't attempt to subvert their own free will when it comes to living their life...Want to try and convince them of something? Go right ahead. Everyone has a right to free speech. But don't force anything upon them...it's called the right of association...heck, force itself is reserved for self-defense.
It's paradoxically both very traditional and very progressive in that it emphasizes personal choice...Guess we were just ahead of the curve.

I'd say going door-to-door is fine...lots of people do it for lots of causes, no reason why it should be a problem and there are ways to deal with them if it is. Laws are pretty case-by-case, can absolutely swing either way...agree with the rest of it, especially those who have the gall to condemn someone to Hell...I'd not wish that on my worst enemy, and I'm absolutely in no position to determine how someone really deserves to be Judged.

Lastly, I'd point out that America has always been a very Protestant nation, and historically they've been inclined to force their worldview upon people...not saying my own Catholic Church is free of any guilt throughout history, but we've never really been the dominant force in American religion.

Do you have a view on the potential marriage of church and state?

I want the state to stay out of the affairs of religion. It hurts nobody if a religion wants to operate in a certain way in our democratic society. You're not being forced to take part.

I assume that's what you meant?

I meant the inverse: religion should stay out of law.

Oh, well they're effectively the same. Treat all religions with impartiality under the law. Now, I'd advocate against a total removal of religion from the public sphere, because we can see what it's done to France. I'd rather we allow everyone equal expression than remove any and all expression, if you catch my drift.

The one, and only exception I'd make to that rule regards abortion, but that's only because I view every human being at any stage of development as equal to any of us and deserving of a good and full life (I.E makes abortion murder), BUT you have to understand that I advocate for this because I don't think anyone has a right to kill anyone except in self defense. If I didn't view abortion as killing then I'd agree that there is no religious basis for legislating over personal choice in that regard.

(And please, I'm not trying to open the abortion can of worms here, I just wanted to make it clear so you'd not think me a hypocrite if you see me advocating in such a way at some point.)

I'll try not to get into that base, but I wanted to send a litmus test for understanding the opposition..

I'm not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice.

There's a lot of misinformation and general lack of knowledge surrounding abortion which is just assanine [sic?] in some cases and I'm like chomping at the bit to address this issue with someone who appears to be collected and civil; interested in working out a way forward..

Asinine* ;) [I use that word a lot these days...and probably deserved to be described by it quite often as well.]

Feel free to fire away if you want to raise any points of contention. I will openly admit though that my feelings on the matter are not easily swayed, since it has been clearly defined and defended by Church teaching. By the same token though I absolutely understand your position (or at least, likely do) and respect it. Believe me, if I didn't feel human life itself was at stake, then I would 100% avoid advocating for such an intrusion upon someone's medical privacy.

I do pride myself on remaining civil with others online unless they resort to spitting vitriol first, so you have my word I won't go resorting to demonization or personal attacks. :)

So, about abortion then, per the last chain...

It is medically defined that offspring is not defined as a "baby" until it is a fetus, which takes 12 weeks to occur after conception.

For the first few weeks it is simply a zygote, a handful of cells. The next, it's simply an embryo. It's not a human being nor can it perceive pain, thought, memory, joy, etc. It's a collection of nerve cells (at best).
The problem with abortion is that it's often painted by the right-wing media as something that is done constantly after this period. usually when you see photos of abortions where you can make out the shape of a baby, that's usually after the acceptable time of most abortions. The majority of abortions are done within the first month, then the second month.

Even then, the abortions that are done in the ninth month are only done because either A) the fetus is unviable (see: anencephaly *shivers* poor things...) or the mother's health is at risk.

It IS true that a baby can be born out of an abortion. However, because it was born out of abortion, it will still have all of those toxins from the abortion in its system. Resuscitating it would only add to its pain as the chest depressions required to keep the heart beating usually crack ribs. Even if resuscitation is successful, no abortion-born infant has survived. Even then, if it did, they would not lead pain-free, happy lives. They would be torturous.

You oppose all of this...?

Why do you think victims of rape should be forced to give birth to their child? (especially since abortion is done typically within 48 hours of sexual assault rape). With incestual rape, the victim may not be able to voice her opinion until mid-second term.

I read an article recently about a woman who has to have joint custody with her rapist and her child... but that's another story, unrelated; he won joint custody... smh.

I do oppose it, for a simple reason; a human being at any stage of development is still a human being. Therefore it has as valid a claim to life as any of us. Believing that, I cannot in good conscience condone any termination of that human being's future when it is wholly incapable of being a part of that discussion. I sincerely doubt that, were we able to communicate with and ask them, any person who was aborted would actually choose that fate. Not once in my life have I met or heard of a person who would willingly agree that someone else should be the sole arbiter of their very life and future.

Please know this though: in no way do I want to downplay the horrific nature of rape. You must realize that I cannot, in consideration of the above, agree that destroying the resultant human being somehow rectifies the matter. Two wrongs, as they say, don't make a right. The reality is that it's a horrible situation with no easy out for anyone involved.

I should also point out I've long argued that our foster care system needs a serious restructuring, because it makes little sense to "save" all to-be-aborted children if they truly put an impossible burden on the parent(s), and the system as-is is dysfunctional and dystopian. It's not something most pro-lifers talk about, but absolutely a necessary consideration, in my mind.

[One point regarding safety of the mother; obviously everyone has an equal right to life. Therefore if the life of the mother is in danger then she cannot be forced to sacrifice her own life for that of her child. If any procedures exist that attempt to at least save both, but carry with them a very real possibility that the child may die, they are absolutely permissible.]

As far as your last note...that was a failure of the justice system. Personally I feel all convicted rapists should be put behind bars for life, so please never make the mistake that I have some sort of sympathy for those who commit such an act.

Yeah, I guess so.

Giving that pro-choicers and pro-lifers will never be able to see eye to eye, where's the compromise?

Unfortunately there can be none. No self-respecting person would willingly let what they view as a modern-day genocide carry on uncontested. I say that not to be theatrical, but purely because that's how it is viewed.

Thanks for keeping it civil.

Wait a minute, that language is *kind of* incendiary and I wanna check something by you. Do you think people who want rights over their body have no self respect...? You resorted to the no true scotsman fallacy...

Whoah whoah now, don't misinterpret what I mean. Allow me to elucidate;

Any self-respecting person who truly believes something is wrong will oppose that wrong. That does not mean all other people are not self-respecting. Neither does it exclude the possibility that all self-respecting people who do not consider something wrong will not oppose it (and indeed probably support it).

It's not a fallacy because it was not an exhaustive statement. It was a targeted statement.

That's why I asked for clarification.

All good. Thanks for asking. Sometimes I mistakenly assume too much is implied wind up blowing my point to pieces instead.