Pyle released a statement shortly afterwards which did not mention abortion, but said that he and his wife “have private beliefs as they pertain to our Christian faith. We believe separation of church and state is crucial to our nation flourishing.” He also stated they voted for the Democratic Party, and were “troubled by what the Republican Party has become and [did] not want to be associated with it.”[25][26][27]
I’m sure all the women rendered dead or permanently infertile by the abortion bans passed since then can appreciate the nuance of Pyle’s belief in the separation of church and state. /s
Honestly, I think it’s 100% reasonable, and is basically the same thing Biden says. He says they’re Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn’t be shoved on Americans and shouldn’t be the basis for legislation. I don’t have an issue with anyone who feels abortion is wrong, I just take issue if they force that belief on everyone else.
He says they’re Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn’t be shoved on Americans and shouldn’t be the basis for legislation.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It’s cruel by definition.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption.
Both ends of that “gap” involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients, prescribes their use for cases of infidelity, and suggests no less than three times that life begins at first breath.
Ooh, you don’t happen to know a verse for this, do you? I’ve heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.
It’s ok to kill a fully born baby as long as it hasn’t breathed yet
Both came from religion. I can see why some people pick the first one when given only these two options. You wouldn’t want to be a le enlightened centrist after all.
Continuing the Wikipedia quote for context
I’m sure all the women rendered dead or permanently infertile by the abortion bans passed since then can appreciate the nuance of Pyle’s belief in the separation of church and state. /s
Honestly, I think it’s 100% reasonable, and is basically the same thing Biden says. He says they’re Catholic and personally do not believe in abortion, but that he also believes his religious beliefs shouldn’t be shoved on Americans and shouldn’t be the basis for legislation. I don’t have an issue with anyone who feels abortion is wrong, I just take issue if they force that belief on everyone else.
It’s not reasonable for him to say “my beliefs are private” and also support an anti abortion rally in public.
Then what was he doing at an anti-abortion rally?
I was talking about Biden. This guy said they voted Democratic. I don’t know more than what was in Wikipedia.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It’s cruel by definition.
Both ends of that “gap” involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.
It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients, prescribes their use for cases of infidelity, and suggests no less than three times that life begins at first breath.
Ooh, you don’t happen to know a verse for this, do you? I’ve heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.
Numbers 5:11-31
Thanks! That dust on the floor I’m guessing is basically poison, lye and the ashes from other offerings. That’s wild.
Is there a verse specific to when life begins? I’ve read that it’s upon drawing breath, but that’s the part I haven’t been able to find.
In America there are two acceptable views.
Both came from religion. I can see why some people pick the first one when given only these two options. You wouldn’t want to be a le enlightened centrist after all.