Health care relates to the treatment of disease, injury or illness. Since pregnancy is none of those, abortion cannot be accurately labeled health care. In fact, abortion has the same relationship to health care and medicine that prostitution has to love and romance.
@@ribbonsofnight Just because a procedure is performed in a medical facility doesn’t automatically make it health care. Breast augmentation would be a good example of that.
@@MeghanBrowning-cy3tm I didn't say being performed in a medical facility was what made it health care. The rate at which people die and would die if not for medical intervention is what makes pregnancy health care.
We can't get married at 26. Not all of us anyway. Well we could... Could we? Maybe we don't want to! What scared me the most was that I had no money. :)
Very few cases, until we've started doing it actually as a youth. In the sixties very few cases. And even those that were pederasts were exercising restraint.
I've never understood how one can honestly believe in a loving god in a christian sense, when there are children suffering in the most horrific ways possible. Grown up individuals? Ok I get it, it might transform someone to go through hell, but children? Really?
Many German young conscripts and many of the general population, women and children, died in WW2, because of Nazi expansionism. Should God have put a shield around the children? Do human actions have consequences, or are we to be treated as children by the Creator who gave us management responsibilities over the world? Death entered the world because of Adam's rebellion. God has started the process of redemption - at great cost to himself - and eventually these horrors will no longer traumatize us, but there is no escaping the consequences and the lessons in the now. Remember God sees all, and suffers the corruption of the good thing he made.
Pearcey seems intelligent and she presents her understanding the Christian worldview clearly. What's missing in this conversation however is firstly a convincing argument for the existence of god, and a Christian god at that which though not always necessary in discussions, here is absolutely relevant for her position as she is arguing against a position that does not rely on the existence of a god. Her argument for the truth of the Christian worldview (once you have accepted the existence of god) is a kind of bodily determinism. Your biology is relevant to, and informs your morality to a large extent. She criticises the modern worldview for placing the mind/feelings above the body and against biology. In her telling, the Christian worldview says the body is good and should inform our morality and our feelings. What she never addresses is the fact that christianity "loves the body" by making 'sacred' in very specific ways and in doing so it also emphasises that the mind/soul should be above the body in many instances. For example, if the body is telling us to have sex, why wait until marriage? Why be celibate? The christian answer is that it's because sex is sacred. God made it sacred and we should diverge from the biological impulses for that reason. This specific understanding of sacred and it's implications are not discussed or defended and I think they are very relevant here. She goes from "the body is relevant to morality" to "the christian worldview is true" without making a case for why and addressing where christianity demands we diverge from biology. For example in the portion on homosexuality she relies on a biological view of sex, in the hook up culture section she relies on a significantly different view of sex as a physical and emotional act expressing love and deep connection. Here the difference between the biological and the christian definition is stark. And the difference or connection between these two vastly different perspectives is completely ignored. Finally she is intellectually dishonest with evidence. She admits herself that she went digging for these studies, and never discusses contrary evidence. Particularly in the portion about homosexuality she relies on a handful of anecdotal evidence of "gays turned straight". She must know the overwhelming evidence that conversation therapy does not work. This is very disappointing. Would have loved for the host to actually push back and debate, to have brought up contrary evidence, instead of agreeing with everything she said.
It isn't possible to cover everything in one interview, or by one scholar. Try eg The Return of the God Hypothesis. The Stephen Meyer interview with Rogan mentioned here is excellent, and has more than enough pushback by Joe Rogan. On the rest, I'll wait until I've heard the interview. But in general, we have issues that may not be solved this side of the grave. This Christian view is nuanced and balanced: we live in a world that is based on a rational purpose (hence discoverable norms), but is also corrupted in all aspects (hence ambiguous), until it and we are renewed by a future act of God (the Christian expectant hope).
@@davidhawley1132 Hey David, I appreciate your reply and recommendations :) but I do think you should watch the full interview before you comment. I know it's not possible to cover everything in an interview, but this is the main topic/argument of the book so I think it's very relevant. On top of this she's making some pretty big claims that have some real world implications for LGBTQ+ people and waiting in faith until it's all revealed beyond the grave is simply not a solution. I understand that as a Christian its easy to support those you find to be on your side and overlook the inconsistencies in some of the arguments, but it's really important to ask the questions I am bringing up here and demand better from leading Christian writers.
Health care relates to the treatment of disease, injury or illness. Since pregnancy is none of those, abortion cannot be accurately labeled health care. In fact, abortion has the same relationship to health care and medicine that prostitution has to love and romance.
I might agree on abortion but to say pregnancy is separate to healthcare denies the danger of pregnancy to health both past and present.
@@ribbonsofnight Just because a procedure is performed in a medical facility doesn’t automatically make it health care. Breast augmentation would be a good example of that.
@@MeghanBrowning-cy3tm I didn't say being performed in a medical facility was what made it health care. The rate at which people die and would die if not for medical intervention is what makes pregnancy
health care.
@@MeghanBrowning-cy3tmSo should my wife go to the dentist for her her ectopic pregnancy _or?_
@@TheLegendOfRandy Your imaginary wife can do whatever she wants 😂
This is the best interview of Pearcey on this book.
This is a really good interview. So much substance here.
Today was a good day's work. Now it is we who got the advantage. :))
We can't get married at 26. Not all of us anyway. Well we could... Could we? Maybe we don't want to! What scared me the most was that I had no money. :)
They were hunting for Eggplants. They were playing the waiting game and fishing. Unbelievable.
Very few cases, until we've started doing it actually as a youth. In the sixties very few cases. And even those that were pederasts were exercising restraint.
Well that's a tricky one. "Stalking" or how on Earth it is called... Isn't in any Criminal Code. Wake up people!
It is known that Babylonians did that. Or somewhere there.
How is this Swiss apologetics organisation called?
Ahh, yes. The blue context banner. We're all so stupid.
Claiming divine authority for fascism.
14:3 And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Job
@@sson12 Putting Jesus on the wrapper of your fascist propaganda confers a tax break.
claiming inclusivity to groom kids
Now it's fascism. At least everyone kinda knew what Nazi and racist meant.
Define fascism. (It's NOT "love thy neighbor" and "love thy body"!)
I'm also Lutheran because of my Norwegian upbringing. Not for long tho, I'm beginning the path to converting to Catholicism.
I've never understood how one can honestly believe in a loving god in a christian sense, when there are children suffering in the most horrific ways possible. Grown up individuals? Ok I get it, it might transform someone to go through hell, but children? Really?
Many German young conscripts and many of the general population, women and children, died in WW2, because of Nazi expansionism. Should God have put a shield around the children? Do human actions have consequences, or are we to be treated as children by the Creator who gave us management responsibilities over the world?
Death entered the world because of Adam's rebellion. God has started the process of redemption - at great cost to himself - and eventually these horrors will no longer traumatize us, but there is no escaping the consequences and the lessons in the now. Remember God sees all, and suffers the corruption of the good thing he made.
Pearcey seems intelligent and she presents her understanding the Christian worldview clearly. What's missing in this conversation however is firstly a convincing argument for the existence of god, and a Christian god at that which though not always necessary in discussions, here is absolutely relevant for her position as she is arguing against a position that does not rely on the existence of a god. Her argument for the truth of the Christian worldview (once you have accepted the existence of god) is a kind of bodily determinism. Your biology is relevant to, and informs your morality to a large extent. She criticises the modern worldview for placing the mind/feelings above the body and against biology. In her telling, the Christian worldview says the body is good and should inform our morality and our feelings. What she never addresses is the fact that christianity "loves the body" by making 'sacred' in very specific ways and in doing so it also emphasises that the mind/soul should be above the body in many instances. For example, if the body is telling us to have sex, why wait until marriage? Why be celibate? The christian answer is that it's because sex is sacred. God made it sacred and we should diverge from the biological impulses for that reason. This specific understanding of sacred and it's implications are not discussed or defended and I think they are very relevant here. She goes from "the body is relevant to morality" to "the christian worldview is true" without making a case for why and addressing where christianity demands we diverge from biology.
For example in the portion on homosexuality she relies on a biological view of sex, in the hook up culture section she relies on a significantly different view of sex as a physical and emotional act expressing love and deep connection. Here the difference between the biological and the christian definition is stark. And the difference or connection between these two vastly different perspectives is completely ignored.
Finally she is intellectually dishonest with evidence. She admits herself that she went digging for these studies, and never discusses contrary evidence. Particularly in the portion about homosexuality she relies on a handful of anecdotal evidence of "gays turned straight". She must know the overwhelming evidence that conversation therapy does not work. This is very disappointing.
Would have loved for the host to actually push back and debate, to have brought up contrary evidence, instead of agreeing with everything she said.
It isn't possible to cover everything in one interview, or by one scholar. Try eg The Return of the God Hypothesis. The Stephen Meyer interview with Rogan mentioned here is excellent, and has more than enough pushback by Joe Rogan.
On the rest, I'll wait until I've heard the interview. But in general, we have issues that may not be solved this side of the grave. This Christian view is nuanced and balanced: we live in a world that is based on a rational purpose (hence discoverable norms), but is also corrupted in all aspects (hence ambiguous), until it and we are renewed by a future act of God (the Christian expectant hope).
@@davidhawley1132 Hey David, I appreciate your reply and recommendations :) but I do think you should watch the full interview before you comment. I know it's not possible to cover everything in an interview, but this is the main topic/argument of the book so I think it's very relevant. On top of this she's making some pretty big claims that have some real world implications for LGBTQ+ people and waiting in faith until it's all revealed beyond the grave is simply not a solution. I understand that as a Christian its easy to support those you find to be on your side and overlook the inconsistencies in some of the arguments, but it's really important to ask the questions I am bringing up here and demand better from leading Christian writers.
do your own podcast then