Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

I believe that the right to self determination of what happens to my body cannot be legislated by any state. We fought a civil war over the idea that states can do anything they want within their borders if it violates personal liberties.

You talk about the right to what happens to your body. You don have that right. The state did not get you pregnant. You used your right and became pregnant.

This is the key. I believe I absolutely have the right. Who has the right if not me? Do you believe the state has a right to my body?

I agree the state did not get me pregnant. So why should it have any sort of say in anything?

You do have the right. You and someone else got your pregnant. The state has nothing to do with that but you want the state to fix it.

No, all humans don't want the government to interfere with bodily autonomy.

The state doesn't have to "fix" anything - they just have to not take away my rights to make decisions with my doctor about my own body.

No state is interfering in bodily autonomy. You did something to your body, the state did not. Then you want the state to fix what you did to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

I believe that the right to self determination of what happens to my body cannot be legislated by any state. We fought a civil war over the idea that states can do anything they want within their borders if it violates personal liberties.

You talk about the right to what happens to your body. You don have that right. The state did not get you pregnant. You used your right and became pregnant.

This is the key. I believe I absolutely have the right. Who has the right if not me? Do you believe the state has a right to my body?

I agree the state did not get me pregnant. So why should it have any sort of say in anything?

You do have the right. You and someone else got your pregnant. The state has nothing to do with that but you want the state to fix it.

No, all humans don't want the government to interfere with bodily autonomy.

The state doesn't have to "fix" anything - they just have to not take away my rights to make decisions with my doctor about my own body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

My view is that no state should violate personal freedoms. You can't own other people or take away their bodily autonomy. Universal & basic human rights.

Federal law should protect all people.

No one is taking away body autonomy.

Five activist SCOTUS justices are trying to take it away from half of the population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

I believe that the right to self determination of what happens to my body cannot be legislated by any state. We fought a civil war over the idea that states can do anything they want within their borders if it violates personal liberties.

You talk about the right to what happens to your body. You don have that right. The state did not get you pregnant. You used your right and became pregnant.

This is the key. I believe I absolutely have the right. Who has the right if not me? Do you believe the state has a right to my body?

I agree the state did not get me pregnant. So why should it have any sort of say in anything?

You do have the right. You and someone else got your pregnant. The state has nothing to do with that but you want the state to fix it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

Do you think it is the right of the state to tell a woman what to do with her body? If so, why? Do you believe that there are pro choice people who live in anti choice states? Why does their view not count?

I thought the right loved their individual freedoms? You shouldnt be able to take away other peoples decision just because you disagree.

Is it better to be abused and born or aborted as a few cells and not suffer?

No state tells a woman what to do on with their body. Never has, never will.

You must be a troll.

You must be a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

I believe that the right to self determination of what happens to my body cannot be legislated by any state. We fought a civil war over the idea that states can do anything they want within their borders if it violates personal liberties.

You talk about the right to what happens to your body. You don have that right. The state did not get you pregnant. You used your right and became pregnant.

This is the key. I believe I absolutely have the right. Who has the right if not me? Do you believe the state has a right to my body?

I agree the state did not get me pregnant. So why should it have any sort of say in anything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

Do you think it is the right of the state to tell a woman what to do with her body? If so, why? Do you believe that there are pro choice people who live in anti choice states? Why does their view not count?

I thought the right loved their individual freedoms? You shouldnt be able to take away other peoples decision just because you disagree.

Is it better to be abused and born or aborted as a few cells and not suffer?

No state tells a woman what to do on with their body. Never has, never will.

You must be a troll.

There are tons of articles on this and an entire study of the theology of the body. You just haven't read or thought about them I guess. It's been an issue with the catholic church for centuries. It's been a discussion in catholic circles I'm in, so it's definitely a thing. Sorry you don't understand but you are only one person. Others do. The catholic teaching is basically to unify our body with our soul through suffering in life.

Firstly it's very obvious that Mary gave up her body for God to be born and gave up her son and that Jesus gave up his body on the cross. It's very obvious that communion is eating and drinking of his body because it's explicitly stated. Basically consuming his body to purify ours because ours are sinful. For more on this see theology of the body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology_on_the_body

Early Church fathers wrote on the role of the body and its relation to the soul, often elevating soul over body. But like the soul, it is also created by God in his image. This is considered important even today, as the existence of a soul is the basis for much Church teachings on the human body, in areas such as abortion. Some early Church fathers, like Origen were preoccupied with the body and its impediments.[1] The theology of early Church fathers focused on the body in terms of its origin, condition before the fall of man, and destination and relation to the soul.[2] Questions were raised as to whether the body may impede the soul in its attempt to be the image of God. These questions, addressed by the ancient Church, are relevant to a modern theology of the body, because they relate to concerns and definitions on the beginning and nature of human life.[3]

Clement of Alexandria (140?-220) viewed the body as the inferior partner in the body-soul relationship. The body tends to be sinful. The soul has three advantages over the body: it gives unity and life to the body; allows the body to reason; and is oriented towards God, while the body is oriented towards food and sex. The body is the grave of the soul, but also its home and vehicle

Like Clement, Origen (185-254?) was an African. Also like Clement, Origen considers the human body a prison of the soul. Only the soul existed in paradise, according to Origen, the body was taken on by Adam and Eve; as they were cast out of paradise

The body, formed in the image of God, and the soul, which has adopted the Spirit of the Father, in harmony, make up the perfect human being, according to Irenaeus (died around 202).[10] The Greek Gnosis and some Christians had looked down on the human body as inferior. Irenaeus defends the body because it is the creation of God and a negative view would cast shadows both over God and his creation. Those who accept Christ are redeemed and become children of God, regaining eternal life. However those who live only by their body and its needs, will not share eternal life

Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390) contemplated on the origin of the human body. Man was created by God with body and soul, a visible and invisible part, like the angels. He was created to praise God like they did.[16] The body was given to man, so he may suffer and eventually die, and thus not consider himself to be God. The material essence of the body separates us from God, like a cloud, or, as Gregory stated, like the cloud between the Egyptians and the Israelites.[17]

By giving man a perishable body, man was saved from the deep fall of Lucifer into eternal damnation. Regarding the relation between body and soul, Gregory states, the body is related to the soul, like the way in which the soul is related to God. To explain human existence, Gregory uses the concept of light: God is the most sublime light, He cannot be penetrated or defined. He is followed by the angels, and then by human beings. Man is the image of God but only in his soul, not in his body.[19] He is therefore also a mixture of eternal and temporal. The grace of God created the soul of man. His body was created for suffering, to overcome his pride. The soul is destined to lead the body and be purified like gold in a fire. The soul is oriented towards God and yearns to communicate with him. The human body is the lower element of the human person.

Augustine is the father of many contemporary theological views on the body. He dwelled at length on the condition of the human body before and after the fall. He was convinced that the heavenly state consisted in complete control of mind over body, especially in the area of sexuality. This condition of complete freedom and absence of lust existed for human sexuality too before the fall.[6] The body must be controlled, and therefore Augustine like his teacher Ambrose considered virginity of the human body the superior way of Christ

Pope Pius explained in Sacra virginitas that virginity is superior to marriage.[36] He also rejects the view that the human body needs fulfillment of the sexual instinct for the sake of one's mental or physical health, or for the harmony of one's personality.[37] In this context he criticized the cult of the body and disorderly love of oneself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

Do you think it is the right of the state to tell a woman what to do with her body? If so, why? Do you believe that there are pro choice people who live in anti choice states? Why does their view not count?

I thought the right loved their individual freedoms? You shouldnt be able to take away other peoples decision just because you disagree.

Is it better to be abused and born or aborted as a few cells and not suffer?

No state tells a woman what to do on with their body. Never has, never will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

My view is that no state should violate personal freedoms. You can't own other people or take away their bodily autonomy. Universal & basic human rights.

Federal law should protect all people.

No one is taking away body autonomy.

Is it because you live in a state that allow abortion or you are a man and won't get pregnant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

My point was right on. If a woman in another state is forbidden or banned to make a choice for her body than of course I care about it. Not every women can afford to travel out of state. Do you not care about other people when they are suffering just because you are safe? The life of the woman is important. this is all about control of women's lives. Very much like the Taliban controlling women's lives. You don't think many of the supporters of the abortion ban would wish women could be controlled like the Taliban?

Why should your views about the laws of another state over-ride the views of voters in that state?

Do you think it is the right of the state to tell a woman what to do with her body? If so, why? Do you believe that there are pro choice people who live in anti choice states? Why does their view not count?

I thought the right loved their individual freedoms? You shouldnt be able to take away other peoples decision just because you disagree.

Is it better to be abused and born or aborted as a few cells and not suffer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics don’t really respect the body. They eat it as past of communion. Mary and Jesus both gave up their body. So I guess in turn they want to make up for all of this by saying all people must come into the world to have the ability to give up their life for God.

You don’t even know what you said.

Yes I do. Catholics like to pretend like they care about bodies on earth, but in fact all of their teachings are about giving up your body to God and the people they worship are literally on earth to give up their body.

Another incoherent statement.

To you. Because you are not smart.

Says the incoherent one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics don’t really respect the body. They eat it as past of communion. Mary and Jesus both gave up their body. So I guess in turn they want to make up for all of this by saying all people must come into the world to have the ability to give up their life for God.

You don’t even know what you said.

Yes I do. Catholics like to pretend like they care about bodies on earth, but in fact all of their teachings are about giving up your body to God and the people they worship are literally on earth to give up their body.

Another incoherent statement.

To you. Because you are not smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics don’t really respect the body. They eat it as past of communion. Mary and Jesus both gave up their body. So I guess in turn they want to make up for all of this by saying all people must come into the world to have the ability to give up their life for God.

You don’t even know what you said.

Yes I do. Catholics like to pretend like they care about bodies on earth, but in fact all of their teachings are about giving up your body to God and the people they worship are literally on earth to give up their body.

Another incoherent statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholics don’t really respect the body. They eat it as past of communion. Mary and Jesus both gave up their body. So I guess in turn they want to make up for all of this by saying all people must come into the world to have the ability to give up their life for God.

You don’t even know what you said.

Yes I do. Catholics like to pretend like they care about bodies on earth, but in fact all of their teachings are about giving up your body to God and the people they worship are literally on earth to give up their body.