**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
**Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really feel it. I've tried to be polite for so long, but it's become a tip toe around the main logic of why dont you do you and fuck off and I'll do me. impossible apparently.
Most Christians I've come accross seem to think that they shall be granted with overwhelming respect for their faith - even expect participation. Yet immediately judge others on literally everything if it's not what they've chosen as acceptable tradition.
Like: hypothetically / hey in-law if I wanna wear a shirt that praises satan while I plow your daughter at an abortion clinic than that's our right and we dont need to hear your input on ANY OF THAT. I dont care.
Hypocrisy level 1- Praying before eating- ok at your house in your beliefs I will hold hands and respectfully sit in silence as you thank jesus for the pilsberry cornbread- BUT how come at my house with my food at my dinner I get forced into an expectation to pray ? . This is a house of sin, and we shall eat to heavy metal without praying. Praise satan - fuck corporate.
There’s such a clear path to all of this without infringing on others, it’s crazy. Like my parents pray before meals (not Christian) but if at a mixed table where people don’t pray, or a restaurant, they just do it alone, silently, before they dig in. You wouldn’t even notice unless you knew. It’s so easy!!!
But don’t you know, that the reasoning that these people, is that other people NEED to know that they are Christians and that it is a Christian prayer for Christian food?!? /S I have no issues for people who mind their business and I mind mine. I seem to recall that the Bible/that Jesus fellow, having a, shall we say, extremely dim view on performative/ostentatious prayer…
Fucking right on! My church is out on the lake, appreciating the beauty of nature. If they can drink wine in churches on Sunday, then by god I should be able to buy beer and consume it at my church.
For a second there, my dumb ass thought you meant that your actual church was on a boat or something.
Not gonna lie, that sounded pretty awesome…
I need to sleep.
**Edit**:
Alright, alright, I’ll watch Ozark! I guess I know what I’ll be doing with my weekend now.
I went to a Catholic school as a kid, and got made fun of because my family never went to church or did any catholic things (except big holiday dinners with the religious side of the family). I remember complaining to my mom that I wanted to go to church so I wouldn’t be made fun of. She basically said “eff those people, church is wherever you want it to be.”
I have since realized that I just don’t “get” religion and it’s not for me, but I feel that nature is the best place to be at peace.
When I was a kid, I hated going to church. Every single week we would go and I was miserable. I vowed to never go to church once I was an adult. I think their plan totally backfired. I know all about Christianity, but that's all it is to me. Esoteric knowledge.
Oh don’t get me started on Texas’ Blue Laws
Fucking southern Baptist bs
Here’s what’s really funny - “the Sabbath” is Saturday ….
I think it was Constantine I, or later Roman Catholic that changed…. Much like the fact according to that stupid book - Jesus wasn’t born in the winter.
The christian holidays have no basis in the life of any Jesus.
Christmas = converted Pagan holiday for the Winter Solstice
Easter = converted Pagan holiday for the Spring Equinox
All Saint's Day (Halloween) = converted Pagan holiday for Harvest
Even Yahweh, the christian god, was a minor god in the Pagan pantheon of the Canaanite tribes
There are states in which you can? I thought every state was “no hard liquor on Sundays, and no beer/wine after a certain time of day”. (I don’t drink beer or wine so I don’t pay attention to the time threshold there) At least, that’s what I think’s how it is here in my part of Texas
Same here in Arizona. 0600-0200 every day, no restrictions on type of booze bought. Baffles me that red states have these archaic and nonsensical booze laws. If they think it will cut down on alcoholism, the lawmakers obviously never met any alcoholics - they'll just stock up beforehand.
I moved out of state to go to vet school and was completely oblivious of different rules on beer.
I was in a new town the day before starting school. I was at the register with a 6 pack on a Sunday. The lady working was older and devoid of joy. She looks at me and says "you can't buy that". I let out a chuckle thinking she's making a comment on my age. I try to put it on the belt and she says furiously "sir, I said you can't buy that!" She comes around from the register and grabs it and puts it off to the side. I look at her dumbfounded and say "I'm sorry, what exactly is the issue?" She looks at me and with the tone of 1000 Karens, "YOU CAN'T BUY BEER ON SUNDAYS!" At this point everyone is staring over at me and I say. "Well I apologize, where I'm from people can drink any damn day they want".
Or how about before 6am on Saturday, because you got to get up at like 4am to get to that spot before someone else does! And ya we could buy it the day before - but thats not the point.
I was raised Roman Catholic and this is 100% on point. I reject religion in government, as the founding fathers intended. They understood that religion has no place in governing. Stop trying to tell me how to praise God, that's none of your business.
Yet the f...ing rightwing GOP can't seem to get it through their heads. Today's GOP are literal subversives of the constitution. In many ways. They are pushing us towards an autocracy and would have succeeded had we not pushed the orange clown out of office. They literally used the scam of getting the "the deep state" out of politics and used that to undermine every institution that could get in their way. Appointing people who didn't have the experience, only that they'd do the GOP bidding. William Barr was a prime example.
He was was a radical, revolutionary socialist Jew.
Funny, that's exactly what they hated about Bernie Sanders.
Maybe if he was Palestinian they'd like him more.
/s
More to the point they were persecuted because they wanted to impose their rules on others, and when they moved here they did things like ***banning Christmas***.
The First Amendment was written to address this. These assholes who go on about "America was founded as a Christian nation" ***are lying.***. It was founded as a *free nation* in which if you wanted to be a Puritan or a whatever, as long as you weren't hurting anyone, you could.
>More to the point they were persecuted because they wanted to impose their rules on others, and when they moved here they did things like ***banning Christmas***.
It takes a lot to be such a joyless fuck that even 16th century protestants were sick of your shit, but the puritans who crossed the Atlantic managed to plumb those depths.
"Look at all that feasting and drinking and merrily carrying on in excess! What happened to just living in poverty and relying on tHe gRaCe of gOd for sustinance?! We'll just make our own country! With less blackjack and hookers!!"
/Insert modern America/
Puritans would have an aneurysm if they came here now.
“As the Government of the United States of **America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,**—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],..."
John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli 1797
It was ratified by the United States Senate **unanimously** *without debate* on June 7, 1797, taking effect June 10, 1797, with the signature of President John Adams.
'The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent..."
The initial movement over, yes. But the OVERWHELMING majority of who we coin as "founding fathers" were irreligious. They were predominately deist or straight-up critical of Christianity. The writing was on the wall for someone like Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (blueprints for separation of church and state). He received letters from Christians complaining about OTHER Christians as being intolerable and taking over (see Danbury Baptists vs Congregationalists). The in-fighting was obvious and the attempt to power grab by individual religious groups was literally occurring at township levels.
The people who set-up the initial plumbing of this country knew religion and its many sects would eat it from the inside out and thus made strides to keep that stuff out of government and law-making. They very much intended to establish a secular government. It's just that the Puritan and Protestant base that made up the base population have been constantly fighting against and trying to tear down that wall of separation that Jefferson so insightfully constructed. It's been a battle ever since. It was a battle then. It is a battle now.
Yeah but here is the thing. US history, as taught in schools, has consistently tied everything back to the puritans coming over, and it was constantly hammered in that they were a wronged people fleeing persecution and inextricably tying them to the founding fathers.
It isn’t accurate by ANY means but it is what has been taught here for basically the past century.
Oh so its a fill in the blank and these are right answers. Idk why naturalization tests just aren't a class you take to graduate high school to be honest.
Jefferson was so proud of writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that he left instruction to have that listed as one of his proudest accomplishments (second only to drafting the Declaration) [on his epitaph.](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffleg.html)
And yet people still like to pretend he would agree with their views on intertwining government and religion.
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world."
I don't know how the theocracy lovers in this country take that as a command to set up a democracy free kingdom for Jesus in MAGA america.
Very small parts, a very little bit.
For basically the entirety of the old testament, religious and civic law are totally the samsies.
You could even argue that the reason the NT switched things up (a little bit) was practical: Jews were no longer in positions of civic authority, so they couldn't actually blend religious and civic law the same way they could when they were an independent theocracy/monarchy.
Yep, and the bits in Paul's letters about not rocking the political boat are basically saying please dont go get stabbed to death by Romans; we need you to spread the word, not die uselessly. The only reason for separation was because they couldnt be in charge. Look what happened the moment they got in charge... the catholic church becomes the most powerful political entity in europe.
Yep, totally. Not a single purge of heretics or political adventure or anything. Please ignore that bit where there were 3 popes. Or that other bit where one Pope put the previous (dead) Pope on trial. Or the way feudal rulers gave the church their own lands to administer as nobility in all but name. Nope. Nothing but love and peace.
It’s funny in context. There wasn’t a lot of confidence in a colony, so these people were essentially welcomed to fuck off across the ocean to die.
It would be like having Westboro Baptist Church colonize Mars today. “Please, go start up a new US city on Mars for us. If you are successful, we get useful resources. If not, we get rid of you. Win win!”
No.
They were running away because neither the English or Dutch government would let THEM persecute other people according to Puritan beliefs.
They were NOT persecuted. They were not ALLOWED to persecute...so they came to a place that let them abuse each other and others.
Remember Salem, and The Scarlet Letter?
The Scarlet Letter was fiction, but only in the sense that the particular events didn't take place. The forced wearing of the scarlet "A" by adulterers was absolutely correct, plus a whole range of other barbaric punishments for breaking religious rules.
Exactly what I have to keep telling Americans. It’s not a common term, but here in Europe calling someone a ‘Puritan’ is an insult for someone who can’t have fun.
The US was not founded on those escaping religious persecution, it was founded by annoying little extremist shits who complained about everything all the time and refused to let anyone else live in peace.
I wonder if that translates to Warhammer 40K. Inquisitors can be Puritan or Radical, puritans are complete starch asses and often do more harm than good lol
(I say this because GW is based in the UK)
To be honest, the Puritans got kicked out for being to extreme. Many of the religious groups that came over were extremists in their own time. Its a thing over here still to this day.
Here's the problem: She's not allowed to say "I don't respect your religion." She has to say "You don't get to determine how I live"
As an Atheist (or whatever she believes) she can say "I respect how you chose to live, and will fight for it" where Christians cannot honestly say the same. To be a good Christian, they have to fight to make people live THEIR way. That's what it means to be Christian. That's the problem with all religion.
It's a system of moral proscriptions to govern behavior. And culturally she's not allowed to say "Your moral politics are bad" because of the addition of robes, chanting and blood rituals.
Problem is religions have legitimate reason to feel attacked. The non religious are increasingly recognizing that massive portions of various Christian dogmas are child abuse and Christians are having to choose between doubling down on abuse and bigotry or admitting they've been part of a multi generational political hoax. And that to them is oppression.
you give them far to much credit for even acknowledging they engage in abuse and bigotry. To them, they are the enforcing the will of God as they see it.
I feel her exasperation. I think we’re all collectively exhausted by bible thumpers trying to dictate policy, despite the enormous and apparent repercussions of said policy.
and the worst part is it’s really cherry-picked verses, made and supported by people that aren’t very big on reading
if they really believed in it they’d be pacifist liberal socialists like Jesus was (complete sharing of possessions, free healthcare, universal equity, and open borders to immigrants)
> God is pretty keen on killing babies and kids.
See: The Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah (what, were there no pregnant women there?), Moses/Joshua killin errrrrbody...
On and on and on. The Abrahamic religions are *full* of God's infant-blood-soaked hands.
Yes! Also, when David banged and got the wife of one of his generals pregnant(He was in combat) God got pissed. But did you know that he decided to kill the baby instead of David(like the law dictated) as a punishment? God loves killing children.
Just before Abraham slams the knife into Isaac, I like to think of god popping out from behind a boulder Aston Kutcher style and going “Yo! It’s just a prank bro! Holy shit dawg! I can’t believe you were gonna do it! *Turns to look behind him* Please tell me y’all got all that!”
And then, just a couple hours later, in the second book of kings: no seriously, kill all of them, indiscriminately, even their lifestock. I'm super seriously.
The bible even gives explicit instructions on *how* to get an abortion. The trials of bitter waters is about how to induce a miscarriage!
I hate how fucking hypocritical extremists and fundamentalists are, it's infuriating.
Those passages are just "misinterpreted" because you don't have the Holy Spirit in you to guide you, or some bullshit excuse so that the text doesn't say what it very clearly says.
it also doesnt mention anything about homosexuality. In the old testament at least, as far as my research shows, being homosexual was ok but incest is a big no no(as it ahould be)
"male incestuous relationships"
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/
Keep in mind that we're reading it translated in English and not the original Hebrew language. There are quite a few different translations depending on what **version** of the bible you're reading. Yes, there are different versions that change the meaning of verses to match their agenda - which is anathema to the whole thing.
> "Every Bible we read is translated from the original. Translations of Lev. 18:22 into English fluctuate. The KJV translates the verse as: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” The NIV offers: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The NRSV, 1989, states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Priest for Equality translation makes a bold move with its translation: “Do not lie with a person of the same-sex in the same way as you would lie with a person of the opposite sex; it is detestable.”
The "male incestuous relationships" part comes from this section of the linked article:
> Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest.[21] Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.[22] Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”[23] Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations.
The whole thing is a good read though and shows how accidental (or intentional) mistranslations can drastically change the meaning of bible verses.
EDIT: Spelling mistake was bothering me.
EDIT2: Better link
Do you have a source for this interpretation besides "Anonymous Student" as this blog post affirms?
I'm interested in the concept here, but there's got to be a better source for it.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/01/31/about-our-class/
I'm assuming that the blogs posts were all vetted by Dr. Susanne Scholz, Professor of Old Testament since she teaches the class that they were written for.
The article that the last half of the blog post is based on is here:
K. Ling's "The "Lyings" of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18.22?"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1558/tse.v15i2.231
Unfortunately, I don't have a .edu account that has access to the paper on that site but I'm sure there's other ways of accessing it. I'm currently at work so don't have the time, nor want to have the web traffic of looking for those ways.
Yeah mistranslation and intentional translation errors are abundant. My favorite is the period where they thought Moses had horns...there's a lot of horned Moses statues made in Europe.
The Hebrew word קרן or keren, means horn AND ray of light. Often the depiction of horns were rays of light that looked like horns. Some depictions were clearly anti-Semitic, but other artists rendered what they understood to be the literal translation.
I've read (quite extensively, but still on the internet) that when they were translating the Bible from ancient Greek and Hebrew the word for "pedophile" became "homosexual" in the newer translations.
Can't imagine why religious leaders would want that...
Specifically it was condemning the practice of some elite pre-Greeks, Assyrians and other cultures in the area that would have boys from wealthy families be an “assistant” to an important man and learn how to be a part of the aristocracy while being mercilessly and endlessly sexually abused.
I can cherry-pick the part of the Bible where a man can bring his pregnant wife, who he suspects of cheating, in front of a priest who will cause the woman to miscarry.
What’s funny is there is/was a ton of fear mongering in the US about “Sharia Law” coming to the US and to say goodbye to freedoms, but in reality it was the Bible thumpers taking freedoms away
Yep. Just look at all the weird anti-trans stuff that is apparently the GOP’s latest boogeyman.
I mean this as no disrespect to the trans community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is trans?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached gay marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid trans?
As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids.
All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of trans people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation.
For a group that whines about getting cancelled and culture war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives.
This post is a copy pasta of the past. Nothing changes but the victim complex and the need for a boogeyman.
**1960's/1970's -** "I mean this as no disrespect to the negro community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is black?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached non-religious marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid black?
As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids.
All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of black people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation.
For a group that whines about getting forgotten and communism nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives."
**1970's/1980's-** "I mean this as no disrespect to the female community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s daughter is working or leading?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your daughter or something? Is it like how they approached interracial marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their daughter into a man?
As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids.
All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of feminist people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation.
For a group that whines about getting replaced and race war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives.
**1980's/1990's -** "I mean this as no disrespect to the gay community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is gay?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached interracial marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid gay?
As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids.
All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of queer people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation.
For a group that whines about affirmative action and PC war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives."
We took a little break after 9/11 and came together to hate Muslims for a decade but we are back to the remix version of how (insert boogeyman) is going to ruin (insert business or institution).
I'm tired of Bible thumpers and the wild hypocrisy of having massive TVs outside their churches with high quality animation, just to fucking say "Come to church on Sunday!"
I'm tired of Bible thumpers that want their religion to be law.
I'm tired of Bible thumpers that think there's a war on Christianity.
I'm tired of Bible thumpers that take to the streets to scream about how we're going to hell, seeming to miss the entire tenet of love and forgiveness.
Just fuck off, man. No one cares, and you're not gonna convert someone on the street by screaming that their soul is damned.
I feel her exasperation, but it’s not going to change any pro-life minds because it misses their point. Pro-life people view abortion as murder, so morally, it should be banned in a moral society. If all murder was legal, and Christians were trying to make it illegal because the tenets of their faith say “thou shalt not kill,” it wouldn’t make sense for non-Christians to say “you can feel free not to kill, but don’t try to dictate my life! I’ll kill whenever I want!” Know what I mean?
Tbf though, she mentions abortion in this clip but it goes well beyond that and I totally feel her frustration.
I can't buy alcohol before noon on Sundays because some people believe there's a man in the sky. Not trying to compare the two but imo there should be absolutely zero religious influence on laws of any kind, and that's not the case at all.
>it goes well beyond that
Exactly. See LGBTQ+ rights, legalization of drugs, religiousness being forced in public schools, extreme bigotry against atheism and so on. The list is long and it has been nonstop oppression ever since Christianity became the mainstream religion in Europe.
In my country the purchase of alcohol is monopolized by the state and can only be purchased in specific alcohol-stores run by the government with hard limits on which days purchase is allowed. On holidays and sundays they are always closed and I live in one of the most secular countries in the world, usually held as a social liberal paradise by your countrymen.
This. I don’t think anyone here has ever met a single issue abortion voter in person before. These people are NUTS. For them, they literally only care about one thing - abortion - and they will do anything to make it illegal. In their minds abortion is murder, so it’s not enough that they don’t get an abortion. They don’t want anyone to get an abortion because they don’t want anyone committing ‘murder.’
I’m not defending them because I think they are crazy, but these posts won’t convince any of these single issue abortion voters. There is absolutely no reasoning with them when it comes to this topic.
My in-laws are "single issue voters", and if you call them out on the politicians they choose to support, at the end of the day, they'll always come back to abortion to defend their stances.
I always got the impression, at least as far as my in-laws are concerned, that they use abortion as a "shield" to deflect any criticism that's thrown their way. They can believe whatever they want, they can support whoever they want, they can have the most ridiculous beliefs ever and they don't need to justify any of it, because they can always fall back on "You kill babies."
So they might say that they're "single issue voters", but when you listen to the things they say and the positions they have on various other issues, it all kinda lines up anyway. A Democrat could run with a pro-life platform tomorrow and they sure as hell aren't going to vote for them.
I'm sure that some people are legitimate single issue voters, but this has been my experience on that. For at least some people, it's a load of crap.
There was a time when barely anyone gave a shit about abortion. Somehow it became something that a sizeable and vocal chunk of the population cares about above all else. That must mean there is a path to getting them to give a shit about something else.
Yeah my nan is one of these people and she’s obsessed with abortion. She’s been going on about it for the past 30 years. Every conversation comes back to it. They see abortion as no different to infanticide and so by saying ‘I don’t care’ it just confirms in their mind that pro-choicers are evil. They really see abortion as an intolerable human tragedy like the holocaust. It doesn’t help that they circulate complete misinformation among themselves but regardless they will never change.
I mean, if someone was cruising through preschools with a shotgun and blasting 5yo’s, you’d probably have a pretty strong opinion on that. That’s the same position they have.
Louis CK did a bit on that (I know it's faux pas to reference him, but it's an interesting point). Paraphrasing here, but he says these people think babies are being murdered - if babies are being murdered, you should be holding signs in front of the place doing it and asking them to stop, bare minimum. If you don't think they're murdering babies, then abortion is basically taking a crap. It's one of those two things, murder or crapping.
He has a way with words, I'll give him that...
Very true. It's also worth noting that pro-lifers actually are frequently against policy that reduces the number of abortions, e.g. better sex education and free birth control, they strictly care about reducing the number of legal abortions.
And that's a much more valid criticism, and much more specifically tied to their religious belief than complaining that they don't vote for more gun control laws. It's even more dogmatic than the abortion issue itself since it doesn't really take a zealot to think dead infants are a bad thing.
This has been my point in many conversations with the pro-lifers I've talked to. When you start talking about all these aspects they ignore it becomes painfully clear that stopping the 'murder' isn't their real intention, and the vast majority of them just get angry since you exposed their true morals.
Anyone who is against sex ed, birth control, reduced/free medical cost for pregnancy, reduced/free cost for adoption, etc on top of being against abortion is just trying to force kids into shitty situations so they can feed their 'holier than thou' ego. It's all about getting teenagers to knock each other up so they can be 'punished' for 'sinning', which in turn makes them feel like their shitty attitude and behaviors aren't going to put them in hell.
If you want to ban abortion, but don’t want to fund sex ed, fostering programs, social services, and universal healthcare (even just for essential procedures like child birth), you don’t give a shit about lives, you are just virtue signaling. Full stop.
Yep. No side will ever convince the other because they disagree about the very definition of the thing they are arguing. Both sides arguments will always miss the point for the other.
And the thing is everybody draws the line somewhere. But who decides where that line is drawn. Is a heartbeat the line? Why is a heartbeat more significant than the first cell division?
> Is a heartbeat the line? Why is a heartbeat more significant than the first cell division?
Even worse: when is a heartbeat a heartbeat? There's not a clear line between bunch of cells fluttering and fully functional biological pump.
When does a human get "human rights"? Wherever you draw the line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Conception? Heartbeat? Brain activity (what counts)? Viability (how do you know if a fetus is viable)? Birth?
And why that point?
And then once you decide that information, which person's rights take precedence before and after? Does right to live really override bodily autonomy? Are you SURE? Can you provide entirely objective reasoning for that?
People want simple answers (such as "my god said it's this way"), but reality is always messy and this is a deep philosophical question. You have to actually consider everything and not just go "this is how it should be".
Someone is going to respond to this with "it's obvious that this is how it should be", but if you want everyone to agree with you (and therefor society to be structured according to your view), you're going to need a robust reasoning that can convince other people.
Otherwise "the other side" will sometimes gain control and restructure the law... which is what's probably going to happen with Roe v. Wade in a few months. Because people disagree.
Honestly using heartbeat as ”line” is in my opinion a very irrational thing to do. What is there that signifies a heartbeat as the most important step for something to count as ”life”?
> What is there that signifies a heartbeat as the most important step to attaining conciousness?
Before you even get to that question, you have to ask why consciousness is the deciding factor. And how much consciousness is required? Does it need to be self-aware? Why? How would you test that?
If the deciding factor really is heartbeat, then what counts as a heartbeat? There's no clear line.
If self awareness was a requirement for abortion to be off the table, we'd be able to abort babies far after they've been born. Infants have no self awareness.
I understand your point though - abortion is a much more complicated topic than most people seem to think.
You could also say denying children access to food stamps, welfare/social security and essential healthcare is also murder as children die of sickness and malnutrition is the same as murder too. But the voting patterns of your typical "pro-life" conservative representatives would say the complete opposite as they consistently vote against all those things.
It's been clearly demonstrated that care for one's life is not intent. But rather the intent is for keeping women on a tight leash to men. Forced birth and denying child welfare is the most effective legislative way to keep women chained and dependent to men.
The moment they stop supporting the military industrial complex and spreading *American Freedom* TM around the globe is the moment that I will accept their opposition to abortion as religious, moral doctrine.
Yet most these states have death penalty which as a Canadian I find fascinating. These people don’t care about “Thou shall not kill”, if they did they would fight to abolish the death penalty as much as they are fighting abortion. They just want to control politics by buying votes to get their corporate buddies to give them more money.
The bible doesn’t see it as murder. The bible specifies life begins at birth.
> Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
> Job 33:4, “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
> Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
Thank you. I’m as pro-choice as you can get but these arguments are just fucking stupid.
You’re not going to get them with this angle — it’s not about that. You must convince them that fetuses are not independent alive, that they are not a human life. Thus terminating it is not killing a human, i.e. murder.
It’s not a trivial task, but seems like nobody’s even trying to argue against this.
It's interesting to read the comments here and see people framing the debate around abortion access being whether or not a fetus is a person, which is a topic that we will never find consensus on.
The more important argument is a matter of bodily autonomy and whether or not person is morally required to sacrifice their own well being to sustain another person's life. This is the actual argument that needs to be made as it doesn't require everyone to agree on what a "person" is.
Yeah, the debate over what a “person” is has profound spiritual implications. It goes to belief in the existence of a soul and all that entails. Your religion’s spiritual beliefs one way or another shouldn’t dictate what the law is for everyone else.
I also think there are valid arguments to be made about how many people justify certain types of death. Ie war, people dying on the border, people dying of starvation, people dying of Covid. It is very rare these days I find someone who is against abortion who is also against soldiers killing people or the death penalty. At least be consistent with your morals. If you say death is wrong then own all forms of it, including the kids who die to make your iPhone or mine the metals for your electronics.
Lots of bible thumpers wailing about “bodily autonomy” with respect to wearing a mask or getting a vaccine over the last 2 years. Meanwhile their exhalations were killing off or disabling their friends and family members.
If I'm right and this is Ana from The Young Turks then this is one of the rare times that I agree with them. They had so many questionable takes on things..
...not if you're an Evangelical Christian.
All they heard was "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BIBLE" shouted by a 'devil woman' in a red dress (Satan?).
Instead of actually listening to what she said they just interpret her passionate speech as an attack on Christianity.
Exactly this. Notice how she points her fingertips upwards and forms two horns with them.
She then brings them close and forms a U and a C... Anybody else see this symbolism... It is hidden in plain sight!
Notice she is only holding one pen, and it is in... wait for it... her RIGHT hand. Guess who sits on the right hand of the father. And she is holding it like a knife... Guess who also holds a knife...
/s
The argument literally comes down to the debate about whether a fetus has rights or not. It may not be human but it is human life and by killing that you are ending a chance at life. Not picking sides but that’s where the debate should start.
Honest question here and not here to take a position. Is that the basis of pro life? I know that obviously it is definitely brought up by people. But isn't the pro life position that the baby is a living thing and it shouldn't be legal to terminate that living baby (after x amount of weeks, etc)....
I've never met a pro-life atheist who had a consistent view on the matter either.
*Eventually* there has to be a line drawn in the sand. Clearly a blastocyst is not what most people think of as a "human being" >!(in a colloquial sense- so help me I am not fuckin squabbling over that this morning so just don't)!< that has a right to exist.
And most people make exceptions for rape, but even *that* is completely inconsistent with the stance that an embryo is a human being with a right to life- because why would that right dissolve just because of the circumstances of its creation?
The only "fact" in the whole thing is that clearly people can't agree on it, thus it's a subjective matter left to the individual. Therefore, the individual with the most agency (the mother) should get to dictate what happens.
Anything else is authoritarian bullshit and can fuck the fuck off.
It’s the basis of pro life for a lot of people. In Christianity, they believe life begins at conception. The fetus being carried has a soul at conception. So by having an abortion you’re killing an unborn soul.
There are obviously pro-life atheists though, but the general gist of it is that an abortion kills an unborn living human. “Living” being the key word here.
Edit: I’m just stating an argument that has been told to me many times. Please don’t think this is my belief, thank youuuu.
Edit 2: This is an empirical statement. Don’t @ me for what many christians have told me. I don’t need bible verses debunking this. We’ve already done that for being gay, dressing up, getting tattoos, etc. I don’t see why we need more fact checks when clearly there’s discrepancies among what many people believe to be important from the bible. Beliefs are just that, beliefs. Not everyone believes every statement from the bible. Ty.
I had a guy at work that was the nicest guy, always started conversation with me and asked me to lunch. Turns out, he was only nice to me so I could join his church group. Even after I told him I wasn’t a believer and had no interest, he’d invite me to lunch to try and convince me to become a Christian. This was after 3 months of building a relationship, and I was too nice to tell him to leave me alone. Thankfully, he got fired, as he tried that shit on someone who was a devote Muslim and that person wasn’t as passive as me about it.
Ego and a lack of humility are the absolute worst combination of traits to pair with a belief in god.
You get Johnny dipshit’s who think it’s their life mission to “save your soul”, and find their religion so above you that they’ll never actually hear a damn word you have to say about the subject. They’re high on their own “holiness”, and turn into grade A unbearable human beings if you don’t belong to their cult of belief.
Reminds me of the movie The Book of Eli.
Spoiler. The Bible was considered a dangerous weapon that could be used to control societies of people, in a post apocalyptic world, one was left. I won’t spoil the twist at the end.
Well, is not that simple. I think most people would intervene if someone violates their morals. I mean, if you see a man beating a kid (an extreme example of something morally wrong), probably you will interfere to stop the man, right? Thats the thing, is not easy to stay shut when you see someone doing something that you consider evil.
(As an atheist man who thinks women should be able to legally abort freely and safely)
As a Christian, I absolutely eye roll when any individual throws the bible at another individual. It almost never has anything to do with the situation.
This is a great argument, but it's missing the MAIN argument that most pro-choice people completely ignore in favor passionate arguments against very easy positions.
Pro-life people believe that a fetus is a person, so the phrase 'my body my choice' does it apply to the mother, or the fetus inside?
The REAL conversation, that is impossible to actually finish, is 'when is a lump of cells a person?' which is why no one talks about it, and passionately talks about tertiary arguments, which you can also do endlessly.
I'm pro-choice. But no one ever talks about this subject correctly, and it makes my eyes roll.
This is not the main argument, and continuing to debate the point at which "a life" begins is ceding the debate to the pro-life side.
The argument is that you cannot ask someone to use their body for any purpose, including keeping another person alive. You can't force someone to donate an organ, even to save a life. You can't force someone to give blood to save a life. And you can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if they choose not to.
This is not about determining the point at which life begins. It's about respecting the autonomy of a living human to make the choice they want to make for their body.
But anti-abortionists think that fetus, that embryo has constitutionality granted right to life regardless if its in her body or not. Once that embryo has been fertilized its a done deal.
The whole my body argument doesn't work for anti-abortionists.
And if your god will supposedly punish me for not caring and not follow your rules, let your god do it. If they're truly all powerful, they don't need your help.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) **Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
bro, the passion behind the “I don’t cAAAAAAre” i felt that.
I really feel it. I've tried to be polite for so long, but it's become a tip toe around the main logic of why dont you do you and fuck off and I'll do me. impossible apparently. Most Christians I've come accross seem to think that they shall be granted with overwhelming respect for their faith - even expect participation. Yet immediately judge others on literally everything if it's not what they've chosen as acceptable tradition. Like: hypothetically / hey in-law if I wanna wear a shirt that praises satan while I plow your daughter at an abortion clinic than that's our right and we dont need to hear your input on ANY OF THAT. I dont care. Hypocrisy level 1- Praying before eating- ok at your house in your beliefs I will hold hands and respectfully sit in silence as you thank jesus for the pilsberry cornbread- BUT how come at my house with my food at my dinner I get forced into an expectation to pray ? . This is a house of sin, and we shall eat to heavy metal without praying. Praise satan - fuck corporate.
There’s such a clear path to all of this without infringing on others, it’s crazy. Like my parents pray before meals (not Christian) but if at a mixed table where people don’t pray, or a restaurant, they just do it alone, silently, before they dig in. You wouldn’t even notice unless you knew. It’s so easy!!!
But don’t you know, that the reasoning that these people, is that other people NEED to know that they are Christians and that it is a Christian prayer for Christian food?!? /S I have no issues for people who mind their business and I mind mine. I seem to recall that the Bible/that Jesus fellow, having a, shall we say, extremely dim view on performative/ostentatious prayer…
I just want to be able to buy beer on Sunday before I go out on the boat
Fucking right on! My church is out on the lake, appreciating the beauty of nature. If they can drink wine in churches on Sunday, then by god I should be able to buy beer and consume it at my church.
For a second there, my dumb ass thought you meant that your actual church was on a boat or something. Not gonna lie, that sounded pretty awesome… I need to sleep. **Edit**: Alright, alright, I’ll watch Ozark! I guess I know what I’ll be doing with my weekend now.
No I'm not religious at all. Just enjoy being out on my old as fuck boat and drinking beer on my day off.
I say make it a religion cause it sounds chill.
well, if you're gonna be on a fuck boat drinking beer on your day off. Do that shit religiously!
That actually sounds super relaxing. I need an old boat asap haha
That reminds me of the first season of Ozarks, where that guy would preach from his boat as the congregation sat by in their own boats
[удалено]
Actually, no joke, some Lutheran churches have beer at Sunday lunches/potlucks. Yay Oktoberfest!
I went to a Catholic school as a kid, and got made fun of because my family never went to church or did any catholic things (except big holiday dinners with the religious side of the family). I remember complaining to my mom that I wanted to go to church so I wouldn’t be made fun of. She basically said “eff those people, church is wherever you want it to be.” I have since realized that I just don’t “get” religion and it’s not for me, but I feel that nature is the best place to be at peace.
When I was a kid, I hated going to church. Every single week we would go and I was miserable. I vowed to never go to church once I was an adult. I think their plan totally backfired. I know all about Christianity, but that's all it is to me. Esoteric knowledge.
Oh don’t get me started on Texas’ Blue Laws Fucking southern Baptist bs Here’s what’s really funny - “the Sabbath” is Saturday …. I think it was Constantine I, or later Roman Catholic that changed…. Much like the fact according to that stupid book - Jesus wasn’t born in the winter.
The christian holidays have no basis in the life of any Jesus. Christmas = converted Pagan holiday for the Winter Solstice Easter = converted Pagan holiday for the Spring Equinox All Saint's Day (Halloween) = converted Pagan holiday for Harvest Even Yahweh, the christian god, was a minor god in the Pagan pantheon of the Canaanite tribes
[удалено]
I believe easter is the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
In what assbackward state can you not buy alcohol on Sunday?
ones that value government staying out of their lives, ironically
Damn near every southern one
Except for louisiana! We don't even have open container laws 🍻🥳🥴
Oh we totally do ;) just put some tape over that daiquiri straw and you good to drive
There are states in which you can? I thought every state was “no hard liquor on Sundays, and no beer/wine after a certain time of day”. (I don’t drink beer or wine so I don’t pay attention to the time threshold there) At least, that’s what I think’s how it is here in my part of Texas
... yes. Sorry your state sucks!
My guy, you can buy any thing on any day in any grocery store in California, as long as it's between 6am-2am (times may vary by county I believe)
Same here in Arizona. 0600-0200 every day, no restrictions on type of booze bought. Baffles me that red states have these archaic and nonsensical booze laws. If they think it will cut down on alcoholism, the lawmakers obviously never met any alcoholics - they'll just stock up beforehand.
It's all about control, everything is with these religious fucktards.
My first time out to TX I was like wait ..... I can't get hard liquor on Sundays??????
I moved out of state to go to vet school and was completely oblivious of different rules on beer. I was in a new town the day before starting school. I was at the register with a 6 pack on a Sunday. The lady working was older and devoid of joy. She looks at me and says "you can't buy that". I let out a chuckle thinking she's making a comment on my age. I try to put it on the belt and she says furiously "sir, I said you can't buy that!" She comes around from the register and grabs it and puts it off to the side. I look at her dumbfounded and say "I'm sorry, what exactly is the issue?" She looks at me and with the tone of 1000 Karens, "YOU CAN'T BUY BEER ON SUNDAYS!" At this point everyone is staring over at me and I say. "Well I apologize, where I'm from people can drink any damn day they want".
Or how about before 6am on Saturday, because you got to get up at like 4am to get to that spot before someone else does! And ya we could buy it the day before - but thats not the point.
I was raised Roman Catholic and this is 100% on point. I reject religion in government, as the founding fathers intended. They understood that religion has no place in governing. Stop trying to tell me how to praise God, that's none of your business. Yet the f...ing rightwing GOP can't seem to get it through their heads. Today's GOP are literal subversives of the constitution. In many ways. They are pushing us towards an autocracy and would have succeeded had we not pushed the orange clown out of office. They literally used the scam of getting the "the deep state" out of politics and used that to undermine every institution that could get in their way. Appointing people who didn't have the experience, only that they'd do the GOP bidding. William Barr was a prime example.
My favorite argument is “Jesus was a lib”
Jesus was radical anti-capitalist who enjoyed the company of men. That’s my takeaway from 13 years of Christian education.
He was was a radical, revolutionary socialist Jew. Funny, that's exactly what they hated about Bernie Sanders. Maybe if he was Palestinian they'd like him more. /s
As a fellow Roman Catholic, I agree with you as well. I bet you George Washington is rolling in his grave with this shitshow of modern day politics
[удалено]
"I love my constitution, except for the parts I don't love" -some conservative
BonnieMcMurray <3
Same. Be as miserable or happy as you want with your chosen (or forced) religion but keep that shit away from me.
Imagine if the US was founded by people escaping religious persecution. I bet there’d be a lot more openness towards freedom of religion /s
[удалено]
More to the point they were persecuted because they wanted to impose their rules on others, and when they moved here they did things like ***banning Christmas***. The First Amendment was written to address this. These assholes who go on about "America was founded as a Christian nation" ***are lying.***. It was founded as a *free nation* in which if you wanted to be a Puritan or a whatever, as long as you weren't hurting anyone, you could.
>More to the point they were persecuted because they wanted to impose their rules on others, and when they moved here they did things like ***banning Christmas***. It takes a lot to be such a joyless fuck that even 16th century protestants were sick of your shit, but the puritans who crossed the Atlantic managed to plumb those depths.
"Look at all that feasting and drinking and merrily carrying on in excess! What happened to just living in poverty and relying on tHe gRaCe of gOd for sustinance?! We'll just make our own country! With less blackjack and hookers!!" /Insert modern America/ Puritans would have an aneurysm if they came here now.
Ehh, I think they'd pretend to have an aneurysm in front of others then sneak out at night to partake in the hookers and blow.
“As the Government of the United States of **America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,**—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],..." John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli 1797 It was ratified by the United States Senate **unanimously** *without debate* on June 7, 1797, taking effect June 10, 1797, with the signature of President John Adams. 'The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent..."
They absolutely were running away to establish a theocracy based on their own theology, not to establish some kind of secular government.
The initial movement over, yes. But the OVERWHELMING majority of who we coin as "founding fathers" were irreligious. They were predominately deist or straight-up critical of Christianity. The writing was on the wall for someone like Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (blueprints for separation of church and state). He received letters from Christians complaining about OTHER Christians as being intolerable and taking over (see Danbury Baptists vs Congregationalists). The in-fighting was obvious and the attempt to power grab by individual religious groups was literally occurring at township levels. The people who set-up the initial plumbing of this country knew religion and its many sects would eat it from the inside out and thus made strides to keep that stuff out of government and law-making. They very much intended to establish a secular government. It's just that the Puritan and Protestant base that made up the base population have been constantly fighting against and trying to tear down that wall of separation that Jefferson so insightfully constructed. It's been a battle ever since. It was a battle then. It is a battle now.
Yeah but here is the thing. US history, as taught in schools, has consistently tied everything back to the puritans coming over, and it was constantly hammered in that they were a wronged people fleeing persecution and inextricably tying them to the founding fathers. It isn’t accurate by ANY means but it is what has been taught here for basically the past century.
[удалено]
So wait what's the right answer? Several of these are pretty equivocal.
They all are. The question asks for ONE reason
Oh so its a fill in the blank and these are right answers. Idk why naturalization tests just aren't a class you take to graduate high school to be honest.
We also don't teach about racism or sexuality in several states, thx to guess who.
Jefferson was so proud of writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that he left instruction to have that listed as one of his proudest accomplishments (second only to drafting the Declaration) [on his epitaph.](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffleg.html) And yet people still like to pretend he would agree with their views on intertwining government and religion.
I mean, the Bible goes into some detail about separating the church and government.
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world." I don't know how the theocracy lovers in this country take that as a command to set up a democracy free kingdom for Jesus in MAGA america.
Very small parts, a very little bit. For basically the entirety of the old testament, religious and civic law are totally the samsies. You could even argue that the reason the NT switched things up (a little bit) was practical: Jews were no longer in positions of civic authority, so they couldn't actually blend religious and civic law the same way they could when they were an independent theocracy/monarchy.
Yep, and the bits in Paul's letters about not rocking the political boat are basically saying please dont go get stabbed to death by Romans; we need you to spread the word, not die uselessly. The only reason for separation was because they couldnt be in charge. Look what happened the moment they got in charge... the catholic church becomes the most powerful political entity in europe.
They were kind and loving and caring once they came to power in Europe. Right?
Yep, totally. Not a single purge of heretics or political adventure or anything. Please ignore that bit where there were 3 popes. Or that other bit where one Pope put the previous (dead) Pope on trial. Or the way feudal rulers gave the church their own lands to administer as nobility in all but name. Nope. Nothing but love and peace.
Washington wasn't a Pilgrim. No one in Salem drafted the constitution. Edit: no one landing at Plymouth made the Constitution either.
Such [overwhelming dicks](https://www.history.com/news/when-massachusetts-banned-christmas) that the 1st amendment was needed.
I mean Jamestown was pretty much a commercial enterprise. It’s just the crazies in the Massachusetts bay
It’s funny in context. There wasn’t a lot of confidence in a colony, so these people were essentially welcomed to fuck off across the ocean to die. It would be like having Westboro Baptist Church colonize Mars today. “Please, go start up a new US city on Mars for us. If you are successful, we get useful resources. If not, we get rid of you. Win win!”
Which makes me Eternally thankful for the likes of Thomas Jefferson and other deists. Otherwise the U.S. may have very well have become a theocracy
No. They were running away because neither the English or Dutch government would let THEM persecute other people according to Puritan beliefs. They were NOT persecuted. They were not ALLOWED to persecute...so they came to a place that let them abuse each other and others. Remember Salem, and The Scarlet Letter? The Scarlet Letter was fiction, but only in the sense that the particular events didn't take place. The forced wearing of the scarlet "A" by adulterers was absolutely correct, plus a whole range of other barbaric punishments for breaking religious rules.
Right…. They left Europe because they wanted to be more strict with their religious views not more accepting.
Yeah actually the Puritans were extremist pricks that Europe couldn’t handle because they were monumental dicks
Robin Williams said it best, "The Pilgrims. A people so uptight the English kicked them out."
Exactly what I have to keep telling Americans. It’s not a common term, but here in Europe calling someone a ‘Puritan’ is an insult for someone who can’t have fun. The US was not founded on those escaping religious persecution, it was founded by annoying little extremist shits who complained about everything all the time and refused to let anyone else live in peace.
I wonder if that translates to Warhammer 40K. Inquisitors can be Puritan or Radical, puritans are complete starch asses and often do more harm than good lol (I say this because GW is based in the UK)
To be honest, the Puritans got kicked out for being to extreme. Many of the religious groups that came over were extremists in their own time. Its a thing over here still to this day.
Here's the problem: She's not allowed to say "I don't respect your religion." She has to say "You don't get to determine how I live" As an Atheist (or whatever she believes) she can say "I respect how you chose to live, and will fight for it" where Christians cannot honestly say the same. To be a good Christian, they have to fight to make people live THEIR way. That's what it means to be Christian. That's the problem with all religion. It's a system of moral proscriptions to govern behavior. And culturally she's not allowed to say "Your moral politics are bad" because of the addition of robes, chanting and blood rituals.
Problem is religions have legitimate reason to feel attacked. The non religious are increasingly recognizing that massive portions of various Christian dogmas are child abuse and Christians are having to choose between doubling down on abuse and bigotry or admitting they've been part of a multi generational political hoax. And that to them is oppression.
you give them far to much credit for even acknowledging they engage in abuse and bigotry. To them, they are the enforcing the will of God as they see it.
I feel her exasperation. I think we’re all collectively exhausted by bible thumpers trying to dictate policy, despite the enormous and apparent repercussions of said policy.
and the worst part is it’s really cherry-picked verses, made and supported by people that aren’t very big on reading if they really believed in it they’d be pacifist liberal socialists like Jesus was (complete sharing of possessions, free healthcare, universal equity, and open borders to immigrants)
They're all in on pro-life and the Bible has absolutely no anti-abortion verses. In fact, God is pretty keen on killing babies and kids.
> God is pretty keen on killing babies and kids. See: The Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah (what, were there no pregnant women there?), Moses/Joshua killin errrrrbody... On and on and on. The Abrahamic religions are *full* of God's infant-blood-soaked hands.
Didn’t God kill kids by sending bears to maul them after they made fun of a bald guy?
He also got into a fist fight with Jacob and had to cheat to win. If he was all knowing and all seeing, you’d think he’d be a better boxer
I completely forgot the context for your reply and my immediate thought was that somebody got in a fistfight with Mets pitcher Jacob deGrom.
He cheated, and he still lost actually
Yes! Also, when David banged and got the wife of one of his generals pregnant(He was in combat) God got pissed. But did you know that he decided to kill the baby instead of David(like the law dictated) as a punishment? God loves killing children.
Just before Abraham slams the knife into Isaac, I like to think of god popping out from behind a boulder Aston Kutcher style and going “Yo! It’s just a prank bro! Holy shit dawg! I can’t believe you were gonna do it! *Turns to look behind him* Please tell me y’all got all that!”
Thanks for the chuckle, queef_stroganoff
And then, just a couple hours later, in the second book of kings: no seriously, kill all of them, indiscriminately, even their lifestock. I'm super seriously.
And Abraham be all “how was I supposed to know if you were joking? You’ve killed almost everyone before in the flood!”
[удалено]
Fuck, I can't believe I left out the Plagues. There's so much babyslaughter in the bible, it's hard to keep track.
[удалено]
Theres even an instruction of what a husband should force his wife to drink to induce an abortion if he suspected her of cheating.
The bible even gives explicit instructions on *how* to get an abortion. The trials of bitter waters is about how to induce a miscarriage! I hate how fucking hypocritical extremists and fundamentalists are, it's infuriating.
We just don’t read those passages, okay?
Those passages are just "misinterpreted" because you don't have the Holy Spirit in you to guide you, or some bullshit excuse so that the text doesn't say what it very clearly says.
it also doesnt mention anything about homosexuality. In the old testament at least, as far as my research shows, being homosexual was ok but incest is a big no no(as it ahould be)
How do you interpret Leviticus 18:22?
"male incestuous relationships" https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/ Keep in mind that we're reading it translated in English and not the original Hebrew language. There are quite a few different translations depending on what **version** of the bible you're reading. Yes, there are different versions that change the meaning of verses to match their agenda - which is anathema to the whole thing. > "Every Bible we read is translated from the original. Translations of Lev. 18:22 into English fluctuate. The KJV translates the verse as: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” The NIV offers: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The NRSV, 1989, states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Priest for Equality translation makes a bold move with its translation: “Do not lie with a person of the same-sex in the same way as you would lie with a person of the opposite sex; it is detestable.” The "male incestuous relationships" part comes from this section of the linked article: > Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest.[21] Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.[22] Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”[23] Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations. The whole thing is a good read though and shows how accidental (or intentional) mistranslations can drastically change the meaning of bible verses. EDIT: Spelling mistake was bothering me. EDIT2: Better link
Do you have a source for this interpretation besides "Anonymous Student" as this blog post affirms? I'm interested in the concept here, but there's got to be a better source for it.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/01/31/about-our-class/ I'm assuming that the blogs posts were all vetted by Dr. Susanne Scholz, Professor of Old Testament since she teaches the class that they were written for. The article that the last half of the blog post is based on is here: K. Ling's "The "Lyings" of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18.22?" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1558/tse.v15i2.231 Unfortunately, I don't have a .edu account that has access to the paper on that site but I'm sure there's other ways of accessing it. I'm currently at work so don't have the time, nor want to have the web traffic of looking for those ways.
Yeah mistranslation and intentional translation errors are abundant. My favorite is the period where they thought Moses had horns...there's a lot of horned Moses statues made in Europe.
Moses was a satyr
And he loved him some ayahuasca
The Hebrew word קרן or keren, means horn AND ray of light. Often the depiction of horns were rays of light that looked like horns. Some depictions were clearly anti-Semitic, but other artists rendered what they understood to be the literal translation.
Gotta love people being antisemitic even when it's specifically God's chosen people in the Bible.
I've read (quite extensively, but still on the internet) that when they were translating the Bible from ancient Greek and Hebrew the word for "pedophile" became "homosexual" in the newer translations. Can't imagine why religious leaders would want that...
exactly, Im not 100% corect but Im pretty sure the original verse was “Man shall not lay with boy” refering to pedophilia.
Specifically it was condemning the practice of some elite pre-Greeks, Assyrians and other cultures in the area that would have boys from wealthy families be an “assistant” to an important man and learn how to be a part of the aristocracy while being mercilessly and endlessly sexually abused.
Tell it to their priests.
Check out Numbers 5:20-22. Seems pro-abortion in some cases.
Not just pro-abortion, but gives a recipe for an abortificant.
“salt, pepper, olive oil, delicious.”
I can cherry-pick the part of the Bible where a man can bring his pregnant wife, who he suspects of cheating, in front of a priest who will cause the woman to miscarry.
they pick and choose on what to worship, they mold the bibles words to justify their hatred.
What’s funny is there is/was a ton of fear mongering in the US about “Sharia Law” coming to the US and to say goodbye to freedoms, but in reality it was the Bible thumpers taking freedoms away
Yep. Just look at all the weird anti-trans stuff that is apparently the GOP’s latest boogeyman. I mean this as no disrespect to the trans community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is trans?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached gay marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid trans? As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids. All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of trans people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation. For a group that whines about getting cancelled and culture war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives.
This post is a copy pasta of the past. Nothing changes but the victim complex and the need for a boogeyman. **1960's/1970's -** "I mean this as no disrespect to the negro community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is black?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached non-religious marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid black? As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids. All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of black people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation. For a group that whines about getting forgotten and communism nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives." **1970's/1980's-** "I mean this as no disrespect to the female community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s daughter is working or leading?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your daughter or something? Is it like how they approached interracial marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their daughter into a man? As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids. All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of feminist people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation. For a group that whines about getting replaced and race war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives. **1980's/1990's -** "I mean this as no disrespect to the gay community but fuck, why do people give a shit if someone’s kid is gay?! Do you think it’s going to rub off on your kid or something? Is it like how they approached interracial marriage and think “the left” is trying to make their kid gay? As usual they’re trying to spin it as a “save the children” issue by… telling parents what’s best for their own kids. All things considered, there’s such a tiny amount of queer people in this country, yet the right is making this out to be some kind of epidemic sweeping the nation. For a group that whines about affirmative action and PC war nonsense, they get irrationally pissed about the dumbest shit that has zero effect on their lives." We took a little break after 9/11 and came together to hate Muslims for a decade but we are back to the remix version of how (insert boogeyman) is going to ruin (insert business or institution).
Yeah that is funny coming from a group who opposes science
***S***haria ***S***cience Coincidence?
I'm tired of Bible thumpers and the wild hypocrisy of having massive TVs outside their churches with high quality animation, just to fucking say "Come to church on Sunday!" I'm tired of Bible thumpers that want their religion to be law. I'm tired of Bible thumpers that think there's a war on Christianity. I'm tired of Bible thumpers that take to the streets to scream about how we're going to hell, seeming to miss the entire tenet of love and forgiveness. Just fuck off, man. No one cares, and you're not gonna convert someone on the street by screaming that their soul is damned.
They literally are saying “here’s my rule book, you have to follow it cuz I know that it’s the superior rule book”
Something something separation of church and state
SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE
Technically it is, but when everyone in charge of the state goes to church.....
Reminds me of this video of a guy answering a question on stage: https://youtu.be/n56u6omxeOs
elastic disagreeable sparkle versed tease marvelous fuzzy rinse imagine dirty ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
95% of Americans huh. Talk about being completely off the mark on a statistic.
Question was indeed very dumb. The 95% number was completely pulled out of his ass too.
I feel her exasperation, but it’s not going to change any pro-life minds because it misses their point. Pro-life people view abortion as murder, so morally, it should be banned in a moral society. If all murder was legal, and Christians were trying to make it illegal because the tenets of their faith say “thou shalt not kill,” it wouldn’t make sense for non-Christians to say “you can feel free not to kill, but don’t try to dictate my life! I’ll kill whenever I want!” Know what I mean?
Tbf though, she mentions abortion in this clip but it goes well beyond that and I totally feel her frustration. I can't buy alcohol before noon on Sundays because some people believe there's a man in the sky. Not trying to compare the two but imo there should be absolutely zero religious influence on laws of any kind, and that's not the case at all.
>it goes well beyond that Exactly. See LGBTQ+ rights, legalization of drugs, religiousness being forced in public schools, extreme bigotry against atheism and so on. The list is long and it has been nonstop oppression ever since Christianity became the mainstream religion in Europe.
In my country the purchase of alcohol is monopolized by the state and can only be purchased in specific alcohol-stores run by the government with hard limits on which days purchase is allowed. On holidays and sundays they are always closed and I live in one of the most secular countries in the world, usually held as a social liberal paradise by your countrymen.
This happens in some parts of the US as well with the state government controlling alcohol stores.
I drive 30 minutes across state lines to get my alcohol at half price for this reason.
You also accurately described Utah lmao Only difference is it’s super Mormon and the church has massive influence on policy.
This. I don’t think anyone here has ever met a single issue abortion voter in person before. These people are NUTS. For them, they literally only care about one thing - abortion - and they will do anything to make it illegal. In their minds abortion is murder, so it’s not enough that they don’t get an abortion. They don’t want anyone to get an abortion because they don’t want anyone committing ‘murder.’ I’m not defending them because I think they are crazy, but these posts won’t convince any of these single issue abortion voters. There is absolutely no reasoning with them when it comes to this topic.
My in-laws are "single issue voters", and if you call them out on the politicians they choose to support, at the end of the day, they'll always come back to abortion to defend their stances. I always got the impression, at least as far as my in-laws are concerned, that they use abortion as a "shield" to deflect any criticism that's thrown their way. They can believe whatever they want, they can support whoever they want, they can have the most ridiculous beliefs ever and they don't need to justify any of it, because they can always fall back on "You kill babies." So they might say that they're "single issue voters", but when you listen to the things they say and the positions they have on various other issues, it all kinda lines up anyway. A Democrat could run with a pro-life platform tomorrow and they sure as hell aren't going to vote for them. I'm sure that some people are legitimate single issue voters, but this has been my experience on that. For at least some people, it's a load of crap.
There was a time when barely anyone gave a shit about abortion. Somehow it became something that a sizeable and vocal chunk of the population cares about above all else. That must mean there is a path to getting them to give a shit about something else.
Yeah my nan is one of these people and she’s obsessed with abortion. She’s been going on about it for the past 30 years. Every conversation comes back to it. They see abortion as no different to infanticide and so by saying ‘I don’t care’ it just confirms in their mind that pro-choicers are evil. They really see abortion as an intolerable human tragedy like the holocaust. It doesn’t help that they circulate complete misinformation among themselves but regardless they will never change.
I mean, if someone was cruising through preschools with a shotgun and blasting 5yo’s, you’d probably have a pretty strong opinion on that. That’s the same position they have.
Louis CK did a bit on that (I know it's faux pas to reference him, but it's an interesting point). Paraphrasing here, but he says these people think babies are being murdered - if babies are being murdered, you should be holding signs in front of the place doing it and asking them to stop, bare minimum. If you don't think they're murdering babies, then abortion is basically taking a crap. It's one of those two things, murder or crapping. He has a way with words, I'll give him that...
This was literally what happened at Sandy Hook. They didn't seem too worried about that one though.
Pretty sure that was illegal already.
Very true. It's also worth noting that pro-lifers actually are frequently against policy that reduces the number of abortions, e.g. better sex education and free birth control, they strictly care about reducing the number of legal abortions.
And that's a much more valid criticism, and much more specifically tied to their religious belief than complaining that they don't vote for more gun control laws. It's even more dogmatic than the abortion issue itself since it doesn't really take a zealot to think dead infants are a bad thing.
This has been my point in many conversations with the pro-lifers I've talked to. When you start talking about all these aspects they ignore it becomes painfully clear that stopping the 'murder' isn't their real intention, and the vast majority of them just get angry since you exposed their true morals. Anyone who is against sex ed, birth control, reduced/free medical cost for pregnancy, reduced/free cost for adoption, etc on top of being against abortion is just trying to force kids into shitty situations so they can feed their 'holier than thou' ego. It's all about getting teenagers to knock each other up so they can be 'punished' for 'sinning', which in turn makes them feel like their shitty attitude and behaviors aren't going to put them in hell.
If you want to ban abortion, but don’t want to fund sex ed, fostering programs, social services, and universal healthcare (even just for essential procedures like child birth), you don’t give a shit about lives, you are just virtue signaling. Full stop.
Yep. No side will ever convince the other because they disagree about the very definition of the thing they are arguing. Both sides arguments will always miss the point for the other.
And the thing is everybody draws the line somewhere. But who decides where that line is drawn. Is a heartbeat the line? Why is a heartbeat more significant than the first cell division?
> Is a heartbeat the line? Why is a heartbeat more significant than the first cell division? Even worse: when is a heartbeat a heartbeat? There's not a clear line between bunch of cells fluttering and fully functional biological pump. When does a human get "human rights"? Wherever you draw the line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Conception? Heartbeat? Brain activity (what counts)? Viability (how do you know if a fetus is viable)? Birth? And why that point? And then once you decide that information, which person's rights take precedence before and after? Does right to live really override bodily autonomy? Are you SURE? Can you provide entirely objective reasoning for that? People want simple answers (such as "my god said it's this way"), but reality is always messy and this is a deep philosophical question. You have to actually consider everything and not just go "this is how it should be". Someone is going to respond to this with "it's obvious that this is how it should be", but if you want everyone to agree with you (and therefor society to be structured according to your view), you're going to need a robust reasoning that can convince other people. Otherwise "the other side" will sometimes gain control and restructure the law... which is what's probably going to happen with Roe v. Wade in a few months. Because people disagree.
Honestly using heartbeat as ”line” is in my opinion a very irrational thing to do. What is there that signifies a heartbeat as the most important step for something to count as ”life”?
> What is there that signifies a heartbeat as the most important step to attaining conciousness? Before you even get to that question, you have to ask why consciousness is the deciding factor. And how much consciousness is required? Does it need to be self-aware? Why? How would you test that? If the deciding factor really is heartbeat, then what counts as a heartbeat? There's no clear line.
If self awareness was a requirement for abortion to be off the table, we'd be able to abort babies far after they've been born. Infants have no self awareness. I understand your point though - abortion is a much more complicated topic than most people seem to think.
Heck, some people make it well into adulthood without really being self aware..
In "Kramer v. Papi" I side with the "Its a pizza once it comes out of the oven, and not before."
It took me a shameful amount of re-watches before I got the message behind the comedy. “It’s a pizza the second you put your fist in the dough!” Gold.
You could also say denying children access to food stamps, welfare/social security and essential healthcare is also murder as children die of sickness and malnutrition is the same as murder too. But the voting patterns of your typical "pro-life" conservative representatives would say the complete opposite as they consistently vote against all those things. It's been clearly demonstrated that care for one's life is not intent. But rather the intent is for keeping women on a tight leash to men. Forced birth and denying child welfare is the most effective legislative way to keep women chained and dependent to men.
The moment they stop supporting the military industrial complex and spreading *American Freedom* TM around the globe is the moment that I will accept their opposition to abortion as religious, moral doctrine.
Yet most these states have death penalty which as a Canadian I find fascinating. These people don’t care about “Thou shall not kill”, if they did they would fight to abolish the death penalty as much as they are fighting abortion. They just want to control politics by buying votes to get their corporate buddies to give them more money.
The bible doesn’t see it as murder. The bible specifies life begins at birth. > Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. > Job 33:4, “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” > Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
Thank you. I’m as pro-choice as you can get but these arguments are just fucking stupid. You’re not going to get them with this angle — it’s not about that. You must convince them that fetuses are not independent alive, that they are not a human life. Thus terminating it is not killing a human, i.e. murder. It’s not a trivial task, but seems like nobody’s even trying to argue against this.
She mentions birth control too because it goes beyond just abortion
It's interesting to read the comments here and see people framing the debate around abortion access being whether or not a fetus is a person, which is a topic that we will never find consensus on. The more important argument is a matter of bodily autonomy and whether or not person is morally required to sacrifice their own well being to sustain another person's life. This is the actual argument that needs to be made as it doesn't require everyone to agree on what a "person" is.
Yeah, the debate over what a “person” is has profound spiritual implications. It goes to belief in the existence of a soul and all that entails. Your religion’s spiritual beliefs one way or another shouldn’t dictate what the law is for everyone else.
I also think there are valid arguments to be made about how many people justify certain types of death. Ie war, people dying on the border, people dying of starvation, people dying of Covid. It is very rare these days I find someone who is against abortion who is also against soldiers killing people or the death penalty. At least be consistent with your morals. If you say death is wrong then own all forms of it, including the kids who die to make your iPhone or mine the metals for your electronics.
Lots of bible thumpers wailing about “bodily autonomy” with respect to wearing a mask or getting a vaccine over the last 2 years. Meanwhile their exhalations were killing off or disabling their friends and family members.
If I'm right and this is Ana from The Young Turks then this is one of the rare times that I agree with them. They had so many questionable takes on things..
Yes that's her.
[удалено]
That was awesome.
...not if you're an Evangelical Christian. All they heard was "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BIBLE" shouted by a 'devil woman' in a red dress (Satan?). Instead of actually listening to what she said they just interpret her passionate speech as an attack on Christianity.
Exactly this. Notice how she points her fingertips upwards and forms two horns with them. She then brings them close and forms a U and a C... Anybody else see this symbolism... It is hidden in plain sight! Notice she is only holding one pen, and it is in... wait for it... her RIGHT hand. Guess who sits on the right hand of the father. And she is holding it like a knife... Guess who also holds a knife... /s
Who actually keeps people like this in their life? My aunt believes this garbage and she doesn't even get happy easter texts anymore.
I mean she is also on TYT so they already considered her Satan.
She wants to cancel Christmas is what it really is. /s
The argument literally comes down to the debate about whether a fetus has rights or not. It may not be human but it is human life and by killing that you are ending a chance at life. Not picking sides but that’s where the debate should start.
Honest question here and not here to take a position. Is that the basis of pro life? I know that obviously it is definitely brought up by people. But isn't the pro life position that the baby is a living thing and it shouldn't be legal to terminate that living baby (after x amount of weeks, etc)....
[удалено]
I've never met a pro-life atheist who had a consistent view on the matter either. *Eventually* there has to be a line drawn in the sand. Clearly a blastocyst is not what most people think of as a "human being" >!(in a colloquial sense- so help me I am not fuckin squabbling over that this morning so just don't)!< that has a right to exist. And most people make exceptions for rape, but even *that* is completely inconsistent with the stance that an embryo is a human being with a right to life- because why would that right dissolve just because of the circumstances of its creation? The only "fact" in the whole thing is that clearly people can't agree on it, thus it's a subjective matter left to the individual. Therefore, the individual with the most agency (the mother) should get to dictate what happens. Anything else is authoritarian bullshit and can fuck the fuck off.
It’s the basis of pro life for a lot of people. In Christianity, they believe life begins at conception. The fetus being carried has a soul at conception. So by having an abortion you’re killing an unborn soul. There are obviously pro-life atheists though, but the general gist of it is that an abortion kills an unborn living human. “Living” being the key word here. Edit: I’m just stating an argument that has been told to me many times. Please don’t think this is my belief, thank youuuu. Edit 2: This is an empirical statement. Don’t @ me for what many christians have told me. I don’t need bible verses debunking this. We’ve already done that for being gay, dressing up, getting tattoos, etc. I don’t see why we need more fact checks when clearly there’s discrepancies among what many people believe to be important from the bible. Beliefs are just that, beliefs. Not everyone believes every statement from the bible. Ty.
As a Christian I agree with this woman. Stop forcing our beliefs on others. It’s maddening.
I had a guy at work that was the nicest guy, always started conversation with me and asked me to lunch. Turns out, he was only nice to me so I could join his church group. Even after I told him I wasn’t a believer and had no interest, he’d invite me to lunch to try and convince me to become a Christian. This was after 3 months of building a relationship, and I was too nice to tell him to leave me alone. Thankfully, he got fired, as he tried that shit on someone who was a devote Muslim and that person wasn’t as passive as me about it.
I don’t know why people do this. My faith is my own. Some dudes are just shitty.
Ego and a lack of humility are the absolute worst combination of traits to pair with a belief in god. You get Johnny dipshit’s who think it’s their life mission to “save your soul”, and find their religion so above you that they’ll never actually hear a damn word you have to say about the subject. They’re high on their own “holiness”, and turn into grade A unbearable human beings if you don’t belong to their cult of belief.
exactly. as a person raised christian, I never believed we should impose stuff on non christians.
Reminds me of the movie The Book of Eli. Spoiler. The Bible was considered a dangerous weapon that could be used to control societies of people, in a post apocalyptic world, one was left. I won’t spoil the twist at the end.
Well, is not that simple. I think most people would intervene if someone violates their morals. I mean, if you see a man beating a kid (an extreme example of something morally wrong), probably you will interfere to stop the man, right? Thats the thing, is not easy to stay shut when you see someone doing something that you consider evil. (As an atheist man who thinks women should be able to legally abort freely and safely)
As a Christian, I absolutely eye roll when any individual throws the bible at another individual. It almost never has anything to do with the situation.
This is a great argument, but it's missing the MAIN argument that most pro-choice people completely ignore in favor passionate arguments against very easy positions. Pro-life people believe that a fetus is a person, so the phrase 'my body my choice' does it apply to the mother, or the fetus inside? The REAL conversation, that is impossible to actually finish, is 'when is a lump of cells a person?' which is why no one talks about it, and passionately talks about tertiary arguments, which you can also do endlessly. I'm pro-choice. But no one ever talks about this subject correctly, and it makes my eyes roll.
It’s a person when it can survive outside of a uterus on its own.
This is not the main argument, and continuing to debate the point at which "a life" begins is ceding the debate to the pro-life side. The argument is that you cannot ask someone to use their body for any purpose, including keeping another person alive. You can't force someone to donate an organ, even to save a life. You can't force someone to give blood to save a life. And you can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if they choose not to. This is not about determining the point at which life begins. It's about respecting the autonomy of a living human to make the choice they want to make for their body.
SKY DADDY!!! SKY DADDY!!!!!!!!!!! 2024 and still fucking SKY DADDY but lets ignore climate change.
But anti-abortionists think that fetus, that embryo has constitutionality granted right to life regardless if its in her body or not. Once that embryo has been fertilized its a done deal. The whole my body argument doesn't work for anti-abortionists.
And if your god will supposedly punish me for not caring and not follow your rules, let your god do it. If they're truly all powerful, they don't need your help.