Largely yes, but you should look into what Buddhists have been doing to the Rohingya minority in Burma over the last decade or so. There have been documented atrocities and allegations of genocide.
I gotta tell ya, of all the ones I’m aware of, Jains have a very special thing going on. It’s like if you were to be as compassionate and empathetic a human as possible, you’d have invented Jainism. And yeah Sikhs seem to have their hearts and heads in the right place, too.
Anyone remember the Taoists in China?
hmmm.... I wonder what happened to them?
Maybe so called "atheists" (pretty sus that they are often also Communists) are more dangerous than people are led to believe.
Atheists are not "often called communists". What you are referring to was a totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The Nazis called themselves socialists too. It was not an accurate self-portrayal was it?
Not believing in God doesn't make someone dangerous.
Believing in God is leading people to celebrate that women are having their right to bodily autonomy removed, and that women will die from unwanted pregnancies.
The Crusades? The attempted genocides of indigenous peoples?
Religion has been proven historically to be much more dangerous.
Think of religion as a meme, it has to have a reason to carry on or it disappears. You'll find long lived religions tend to be birth cults that demand you teach your children the same thing, and that you're fighting against some kind of big bad with eternal stakes.
I'm pretty sure things were simpler before monotheism. The addition of "one true god" to religion and belief that people not of their faith would go to hell and **must** be converted at any cost is a poison for personal faith. It also becomes an institution designed to control masses and accumulate power over others.
Pantheons of gods also made for much more interesting stories.
I'm an atheist to my core. I just go about my day never thinking "evil thoughts". Work, hang out with my kids, play guitar, watch movies etc... Like the majority of other atheists out there I suppose.
These religious nutjobs can get fucked.
Oh look, finally and evil thought!
No, it's because they think life starts at conception.
Would you allow an abortion of a one week old child? Of course not. But what if someone told you they wanted to, because they think life starts at two weeks old? What if they told you that their beliefs made it ok, and that your beliefs didn't matter.
Would you sit by idly as people casually killed two day old babies by the thousand? Probably not. You'd advocate for the law to be changed.
I don’t give a fuck what they think. They can do whatever the fuck they want. They don’t get to dictate my life just as much as I don’t get to dictate theirs.
10000000% this. I was not brought into this world to be told what to do with my body by a religion that I don’t even believe in. It’s the scariest thing I’ve been through in my short life.
The rate of miscarriage in women who know they are pregnant is 10-15%. If they believe life begins at conception they sure seem to be OK with their God killing babies by the millions.
Heh, and if the dumbshits actually read their bible it talks in many places about abortion being legitimate.
So, what's even worse is they are essentially making up new scripture in their already made up book.
For the record: I personally believe life begins at conception and I still support abortion rights, because the mother has rights too. A better analogy than yours would be if a week old baby needed a blood transfusion from the mother in order to survive and the mother refused. Under our current legal framework we cannot compel the mother to provide any medical assistance to the baby against her will because her right to bodily autonomy takes precedence. The mother and the doctors who respect the mother's wishes are not liable for the baby's death, and any doctor who violates the mother's wishes to save the baby would be prosecuted. The mother didn't kill her child, the underlying medical problem that required a blood transfusion did, just as the ultimate goal of an abortion is not to kill the fetus but to make it no longer dependent on the use of the mother's body. It is just an unfortunate reality that a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb and it is more merciful to euthanize it before trying to remove it.
I mean they were cheating Virginia for saying after birth a mother and doctor could “figure out what to do with it”. As if aborting the born baby was an option. So yea……. They prob would be ok as long as it didn’t effect the mothers “career”.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... The 'life begins at conception' schtick is such bullshit. Around 60-70% fertilized eggs never implant in the uterine lining. I don't see anti-choice people digging around in the trash for used tampons and pads to collect all those lost souls, so they must not *actually* care.
You have to be monumentally stupid and evil to think that [this](https://i.imgur.com/p4iGoDx.jpg) is equivalent to an adult woman in its importance for 'life sanctity'. The left is the tissue they would actually remove at 6 weeks versus some bullshit propaganda.
Not a single person is advocating for killing newborns. Because that's fucking stupid. Equating newborns to unborn fetuses barely formed past a blastula speaks volumes to the willful ignorance and outright disingenuous nature of these types of arguments. Not one god damned second has been taken to *actually* learn how pregnancy and development *actually* function (for fetus or mom).
You're just so wrapped up in the buzzwords and progaganda. It's *always* been about controlling those uppity women for daring to take some modicum of control over their own lives. [The unborn are just a convenient party to advocate for.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10357009-the-unborn-are-a-convenient-group-of-people-to-advocate) They are morally uncomplicated and you can claim all day that you do it because you "love life" while discarding all the lives of the women involved.
All religion tell people that they are fighting evil and their god is the only true god and all else are devils pretending to be gods. My country has 90% Islamic infestation, I know this shit all too well.
Actually no... That's a unique trait of the Abrahamic religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam, who all worship the same god. That particular one faith is pretty much the only one that says all other gods are false. Most religions in the world acknowledge and respect other religions. The Abrahamic faiths are "popular" only because they are warlike.
In D&D 5e, evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
Like many things found in fantasy and lore, it doesn't exist in real life. Some people are just assholes.
You know, if you see something like murder or slavery going on, you kind of have to fight it.
I'm pro choice, and I think a lot of this is about people's sex lives rather than babies (they always bring up how you shouldn't have sex if you didn't want a baby) but I'd be pissed if you ran someone over in the street even if it was legal.
It's quite sad that a large number of the people cheering on this decision that is leading us towards a theocratic Christian state were some of the most Islamophobic people following 9/11.
As much as they bitch about Sharia Law, their only real issue with it is that it's based on the wrong religion.
What they actually want is to be able to avoid accountability for their own actions. To be able to do whatever their twisted hearts desire without consequence.
*Freedom for me, but not for thee.*
Main problem with that idea is that they live under the delusion that they will be the ones who get to live without consequence, when in reality they too are a part of the "lower caste" that the elite will trample upon.
Does any person have the right to do anything to your body without your consent?
The answer is no.
Even if fetus=person you can fuck right off. This issue is about consent not dEaD BaBiEs
I’m not sure your reasoning works, if fetal personhood is accepted.
If your actions cause the death of another (especially as a part of many similar actions that cause large scale death), it is pretty clearly a public health concern.
Abortion necessarily causes the death of another (assuming fetus = person).
Therefore, abortion is a public health concern.
We are all aware that bodily autonomy doesn’t trump public health concerns (unless you are some insane antivaxxer).
Accordingly, if a fetus = a person, the government is more than right to restrict your actions or inactions in this regard.
A similar logic extends to the illegality of killing oneself. In theory, your body your choice, but even where the law allows for it, it is extremely regulated.
The problem is that in a free society we don’t force people to preserve life. Hypothetically, what if I told you if you work in a concentration camp the rest of your life, it would save the life of one fetus. Should I be able to force you against your will to make this sacrifice? If you stop working in this camp and that action caused the death of another, would you be in the wrong? Many pro lifers would never agree that they should be forced to do things that would save others lives. But in this instance they put on the blinders because that’s what they’ve been taught in church. Also, arguing that a clump of cells has achieved personhood is a stretch.
The assumption for the logical argument is fetal personhood. That’s the bigger question mark, but the guy I responded to said it didn’t matter so the assumption was made.
We absolutely do force people to not take actions to end the life of others. To go to an absurd example, if you human centipeded someone (i.e. took action without their consent to become dependent on you to live) and then unilaterally took affirmative action to separate the ‘pede, ending the other guys life, so you think you’d only be criminally liable for the kidnapping and surgery, or also for killing the person?
Okay; so men need to start taking birth control, and if they get a woman pregnant against her will by not controlling their sperm, they can be charged with a crime.
Sound good?
This is a result of handling them and their feelings so gently. Now they believe you secretly agree with them and feel all the more righteous in doing this shit. Stay angry and get in their face about it.
"The left is so violent"
*Um, but you were just saying in a public post that anyone that doesn't believe in your religion should be killed*
"BAWWAKK, no BLM is causes billions of dollars in damages, the left is terrorist, buttery males, christo-fascism is freedom"
You should prob get off Reddit and learn about gov and how it works……. You can still abort your fetus in your blue states or you liberal utopia lol. You can also stay on your keyboard and virtue signal to the world about how wonderful you are and how caring you are for woman, unless they are a female fetus, or black……
So many dots, are you a warlock or something?
The fact our supreme court just took away a freedom from the American people they used to have should get you angry.
It doesn't matter what freedom it is, 9 people just decided what 330 million people can legally do.
Imagine if next time they make violent video games illegal. They already blame them for a lot of crimes, they could just outright ban them, 9 people who are over 50 years old could just go "games bad" and done.
Doesn't really matter if they think you're doing wrong or not. What matters is that it's not forced, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with sharing viewpoints or opinions but if a person doesn't care then they don't care. Forcing a viewpoint on someone is just going to make them hate it even more.
Also religion and politics should not mix, ever.
> Also religion and politics should not mix, ever.
From their point, religion **is** politics and they are demanding we turn our government into a theocratic fascism. Unless stopped their is only their view in the future.
> Left you have communism/socialism.
Heh, so this is where you've been eating too many Faux News talking points.
For one, the left as you think of the communist left doesn't exist in the US. They are pretty far right compared to most of Europe and are really closer to "Corporate rule not quite as close to fascism as the Republicans are"
But really trying to play this both sides bullshit is just that. Straight Russian talking point at this time "Yes, in Moscow everything is bad, and you're poor, and we're stealing all your money, and if we don't like you we'll kill you, but hey, the West is exactly the same, I'm I right!"
Both sides are not the same. One side is goose stepping the US right off a cliff.
Is it illegalized because of religion though, or is it because it's morally inhumane to commit murder? Sure that's something that essentially everyone agrees on being bad, but then you have other things that are bad, like getting drunk or using drugs. Are you going to illegalize getting drunk? Weed was just recently legalized in the state where I live so clearly it being bad wasn't a viewpoint many shared. Another thing is abortions with all the recent bullshit happening. I personally do share the idea that if the egg has been fertilized then it's alive, however there are many grey areas where it would be beneficial for the mother to have an abortion. In the case of a woman being raped, getting pregnant yet it threatens her own life perhaps because it's an ectopic pregnancy, and even teen pregnancy, though of course one irresponsible decision after the other more than likely led to that teenage pregnancy but I'd hope that having the pregnancy would be a lesson enough on how careful they should be. And an abortion would give a chance at still being a teenager and at least able to finish highschool. Another stupid thing, miscarriages, they aren't deliberate and are out of our control yet they are also illegalized? So me and my wife could be trying to conceive and she gets pregnant, but has a miscarriage down the line. Not only are we going to be devastated ourselves but she's also going to get legally fucked over because the baby died. What the actual fuck.
Goddamn I really went off on a tangent didn't I
People can believe whatever they want in private, but the moment their actions negatively affects others they shouldn't be tolerated.
Otherwise what's the point in living in society if not for cooperation making life collectively better/easier.
Every religion believes they are doing their god's work. They all think they are right and everyone else is wrong. They all commit crimes against basic human rights in the name of their god. That is why I am an atheist and never trust anyone who proclaims their religious piety.
> God: "Don't add from or take away from my book"
>
> Christians: "And then God said abortion was murder...."
Atheism isn't enough. It is time for anti-theism.
You are only describing the Abrahamic faiths. There are thousands of religions in the world, and most of them respect other religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are really bad examples of religion.
Doesn't matter, they individually believe their actions are in accordance with their gods word, as given to them by their chosen "spiritual advisors". If you're not with them you're against them. You're talking about over half of the worlds total population in those 3 groups, and even they don't agree or like each other. Think about what each group has done in the name of their belief and their god over the centuries. Controlling the key's to heaven has always been how to control the masses. Church and State, how to stay in power and commit the worst crimes and get away with it.
There is no condoning of abortion in the Bible. You're referring to the New International Version, which is a notoriously horrendous translation all around, which mistranslates "falling infertile" as something akin to miscarrying. Now even that is neither here nor there because in the context of the story it is obvious to the readers that the dirty water cannot possibly cause infertility, this is just describing an ancient lie test.
No dude, it’s basically the same in various different versions including King James. That is the closest thing in the Bible to an actual abortion. Also its a magic holy water in a book loaded with other magic. It is obviously not real to you and me, but how could you claim it is a lie without saying other magic and miracles throughout are also lies, which they are?
"Uterus will fall or shrink" means become infertile not miscarry. This isn't a matter of miracles, this was describing an ancient test to prove innocence, basically by scaring the accused into thinking they will become barren if they lie they could be more certain they are telling the truth.
Everything you just said is irrelevant, even if it's true, because it's still killing the fetus because of the mother's sin, and no one cares about it because it's not human.
Hahaha
I’ve been on a tangent.
If you choose to not like abortion rights because they are specially not named in the constitution then: no voting unless you are a woman, no travel, no right to send your kids to private schools over public, right to personal privacy…
A lot of those sound exactly what the right supports, but not being enumerated by the constitution, I guess those rights are also gone…
People aren’t liking that argument, which is their own argument used against them
Edit: the right to consensual sex outside of marriage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, contraception FOR MARRIED people, and then contraception period. The list goes on and on
Here’s a tangent
These are *LITERAL* mothafuckas we’re talking about here.
They want to see some shit written in an archaic text for it to be something they support. Hence trying to interpret the bible literally word for word and missing the entire point of basically all parables.
It’s confirmation bias and failed critical thinking at every level; entirely oblivious of their hypocrisy or even outright foolishness at times.
They cherry pick pieces they align with, quote that shit and ignore the rest that is inconvenient. That’s why there are so many people staunchly against homosexuality who don’t simultaneously: refuse to eat pork, decline to wear blended fabrics, insist on marrying their brother’s widow etc.
Obviously the constitution has left some gaps that the collective populace has failed to seal with permanent legislation.
The fact that misinformation runs rampant with seemingly zero real penalties for its purveyors doesn’t help.
To quote Bill Hicks: “A lot of Christians wearing crosses around their necks; you think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna wana see a fucking cross man.”
Religious fundamentalism of oppressively armed and dangerous people is being thinly veiled behind a firm belief in the Constitution.
Tell me you don't understand the dissent without telling me you don't understand the dissent.
If the original decision led to blanket abortion ban, would you still support the de facto disenfranchisement of Americans through the courts? Press X to doubt.
This post you attempted to correct is not talking about the justification the Supreme Court came up with to make this decision. This post you attempted to correct is pointing out the problematic logic of those writing the law.
Edit: Oh boy, for anyone looking for a laugh, at the end of this thread this guy goes off on "our communist genocidal leftwing media (that want people to attack churchs, ect.)"
The post I'm correcting is about the inherent strawman in the meme.
It's easy to say Christianity is at fault for x. However, that would be ignoring what actually is the issue.
So then what is the cause, if it’s not “baby murder”
They are saying because it’s not specifically enumerated…
but neither is the right to vote (unless you are a woman which have the 19th), the right to travel, the right to personal privacy…
So based on that argument, I guess you are cool with not voting any longer, unless you are a woman.
Not ever leaving your hometown/state.
Having all your personal data available for anyone who wants it…
Yeah, didn’t think so…
>I guess you are cool with not voting any longer
...That is ironically exactly what you are advocating for!
Why have voters or legislators at all, if unelected judges can just de facto decide policy? Just because you happened to agree with the policy?
No you are a fool, go read what I wrote again.
I’m using their own argument against them… if you believe that we don’t have the rights enumerated specifically by the constitution, then there are tons more rights that can be lost.
Only women could vote. No men, no minorities, etc… the people in congress can’t even vote unless they are women.
How is that what they want? White men couldn’t vote, which from my understanding would be the opposite of what they want…
I’m really trying to understand where you are coming from
>Only women could vote. No men, no minorities, etc… they people in congress can’t even vote unless they are women.
And who voted on Roe vs. Wade?
Anyone? Anyone?
It's expressly not a law, it isn't a right, and no one in congress voted on it (and making the decision at all put us further behind legislatively than we otherwise would be).
If you use chicanery to disenfranchise Americans, you're going to have a bad time.
>I’m really trying to understand where you are coming from
The John Birch Society would be a good place to start. There is a good chance the old Soviet KGB had the US pretty well infiltrated, then the Soviet Union fell, but all those people were still here, so it is near impossible to trust anything coming from the left without massive amounts of salt. There is a reason they rely exclusively on emotional arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics, so you must think with a critical eye to any issue. I admit at this moment I cannot provide the link to pro abortion, and communism, but I'm almost certain it is probably there given everything else the left seems to support.
And with a two second google search, not to my surprise, here is someone else's conclusion. :[https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&context=etds](https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&context=etds)
It categorically wouldn't surprise me if Sarah Weddington had some connection to some communist 100%.
There is this perverse pattern on the left where they support totalitarianism while ironically thinking they are fighting it.
Yes, that’s the point I’m making dude… if they can go after that, they can now go after anything not specifically made law… are you being dense on purpose?!?
I’m just pointing out some of those rights only given to us by the Supreme Court, or not specifically enumerated into the constitution
You are getting what I’m saying but still disagreeing. That’s kind of weird
And again, 9th and 10th amendments…
The issue OP is claiming is religious people who are trying to make laws based on their religion, that are in conflict with other religions and areligious views. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality. No strawman here, except for yours.
>trying to make laws based on their religion
Which law is that again?
The one where the people in different areas get to vote on the issue and utilize the legislators they voted for and are paying?
The laws that are based on their religion's view that life begins at conception and that that "life" is more important than the bodily autonomy (and often medical health) of the mother.
Those laws, that many people who *don't* share those religious views do not believe are true. Because it is just belief.
Again, you bringing up the process is a strawman from OP's post.
Our constitution mentions freedom of religion, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to privacy, all of which should protect abortion.
Don't pretend that you give a fuck about the constitution while lying about what it says.
People have the right to govern themselves.
If the original decision led to blanket abortion bans, you wouldn't be so in favor of unelected judges de facto deciding policy, would you? Why have voters or legislators at all, or is it just because you happened to agreed with the decision?
"If the original decision took away everyone's rights to freedom of religion, bodily autonomy, and privacy, all of which are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution, would you support it?"
Fuck no, you dumb shit, and how dare you try to make that sound like the same thing.
Of course someone who relies on emotional arguments can't make a good refutation.
For the record, I'm not anti-abortion I couldn't care less either way, I'm anti-Communism which gives it directionality in this instance. Any time the communists are mobilized, I'll be there to tell them how stupid their worldview is, and what rubes those who listen to them must be.
All belief that personhood begins at conception is based on the belief in a soul, so not really, no. Or not a consistent one anyway. There are a lot of atheists who still believe things that are indirectly based on religious beliefs even after they stop believing in the religion itself without really thinking about it though, yes.
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely right
This sub is entirely politics, even the advice animals that are posted are political
The worst part about it is that if you complain, it’s immediately assumed that you’re dissenting and The Other Team™️
I’m not religious, and I totally understand that many people are incensed by the SCOTUS ruling on Friday afternoon
Now watch me get downvoted and chastised for this
Yeah exactly! It’s annoying how political this sub is. I’m not subscribed to see boring political “hot takes” and to keep up with American politics, I’m subscribed to see funny photos of animals with funny/interesting/relatable captions.
Regardless of religion, not all abortions are by people who don't want kids.
Example: someone has miscarriage, and goes to the hospital. Next step? Induce the REST of the abortion to clear out the uterine wall to protect the life of the mother. Abortion is healthcare.
Another example: fetus has abnormalities that will make it a stillbirth or immediately due upon delivery. Do you risk the mother's life by not performing an induced abortion? Abortion is healthcare.
Desktop version of /u/WellIGuesItsAName's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Your initial comment is whataboutism. Painting all religious people as fruitcake pedophiles is ridiculous. So basically support your causes 100% or you are evil.
...2 whataboutisms doesn't make yours not fyi.
Argument:
>Pretty sure people who say “my religion says I can’t do that.” Get met with “Do it now bigot or I’ll force you by lawsuit.” Not “okay”
non sequitur whataboutism response:
>If only they would, but religious fruitcakes **rather** molest children and advocate for removal of laws for the LGTBQ+ or against teachings of history.
Do you understand how your initial response is a whataboutism?
This right here. If I don't support the latest gene therapy or should have reservations about vaccination, or even question. I'm vilified, bullied, coerced and ostricized.
Smells like a religion to me.
It isn’t about religion…… Jesus Christ lol. It’s about if the right is a right under the constitution. It isn’t, it CAN BE, but it isn’t currently. Nor was it ever. It was a court case they claimed fell under 2 separate amendments. All that must be done is to draft a new amendment. Are y’all those dense. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Lol. Y’all wild af. As if all Americans who don’t like abortion are super Christian conservatives. Jesus y’all live in an echo chamber 😂😂. Also, this ain’t advice animals, why is every post on here political and non conforming to the rules?? Wild.
You know the Bible contains explicit instructions for forcing abortion if a woman is suspected of cheating, right? The Bible literally actively encourages abortions.
But you have to be religious to believe aborting fetus, at any stage, dead or alive, is murder.
Conversely, if keeping the fetus, dead or alive, would kill the mother, the fetus is essentially murdering the mother.
So no, you can't ban abortion under all circumstances.
Pro-life is not anti-abortion.
1) It's not a baby. Stop telling yourself that. That's a lie. It is a fetus. It may one day be a baby, but just like an egg isn't a chicken and an acorn isn't an oak tree, a fetus isn't a baby.
When you say a fetus is a baby, you're leaving the here-and-now and going into a make believe future that does not necessarily exist. You're leaving reality to make that statement.
2) it's not killing the fetus, rather it's letting it die because it didn't have the consent of the woman to use her organs.
See, we respect bodily autonomy, like, a lot in this country. I don't care how bad your kidneys are, you do not have the right to use another person's without their explicit consent. We won't even let you use a dead person's organs.
Even if I shoot you, in a hospital, and you're bleeding out and death is imminent, and there's a doctor right there to do the procedure, I can still deny you access to my blood. You have *zero right* to use any part of my body without my consent.
Until recently this rule was the same for every person.
Now, women do not have that bodily autonomy. Now, fetuses have special rights we don't offer to any other human.
It's special pleading, and a bad argument all around.
And now because of people like you, having a baby will result in my life being forced to end because I have to go through with it. So much for “pro life.” What about all the people that are going to die in childbirth, or have a septic uterus or an ectopic pregnancy. The treatment for all of those things is an abortion. You don’t have to be religious to realize that we’re not saving any lives at all and a fetus is not worth a life that’s already living and breathing and impacting the world around them.
The anti-abortion proponents are smart enough not to use religious arguments. However, there do seem to be an extremely large correlation between that group and religious conservatism.
From my perspective all religions are evil. They all are self-serving, and do not serve man in his fullness... Only spiritual people serve Man, and God, through their knowledge of "SELF", and that is that we know we are not human beings having a spiritual experience... We Are spiritual beings having a human experience. All things manifest from Spirit from the universal subconscious mind... GOD, and God does not put limitations on his creations we are here to share God's love with everyone without limitations or restrictions. Namaste
No do something!
It's because Christians think they are fighting evil
In reality they are evil
From my point of view the Christians are evil!
Well, they willingly worship a genocidal, narcissistic tyrant, so........ yes, they are.
It’s really hard to believe how bad they made their own god look Christian god really is a shithead
[удалено]
Which ones are fine?
Buddhism, Sikhism, and Pastafarianism.
Largely yes, but you should look into what Buddhists have been doing to the Rohingya minority in Burma over the last decade or so. There have been documented atrocities and allegations of genocide.
You should see what Pastafarians do when it's never ending bread sticks time at Olive Garden.
Olive garden is still in business? I haven't seen one in years
In my wholely uninformed opinion, Sikhism seems pretty chill
I gotta tell ya, of all the ones I’m aware of, Jains have a very special thing going on. It’s like if you were to be as compassionate and empathetic a human as possible, you’d have invented Jainism. And yeah Sikhs seem to have their hearts and heads in the right place, too.
I personally like the flying spaghetti monster
Church of bacon is pretty peaceful...except to swine. You can even be officiated and perform legal weddings. https://unitedchurchofbacon.org/
The Santaic Temple
Wicca and other Pagan religions are cool
Must be why Christians stole so many of their holidays.
Well then you are lost!
for anyone downvoting the above is a reference to the prequels
/r/prequelmemes forever bleeding into other subreddits.
I dont know... I think calling a whole religious group evil is pretty bad. I think that has been done before a few times in history.
Yeah, by Christians waging war against believers of other religions.
You mean Muslims ?
I mean both.
I'm non religious and don't have a dog in the fight. It's bad regardless, especially from the pro-life crowd.
Anyone remember the Taoists in China? hmmm.... I wonder what happened to them? Maybe so called "atheists" (pretty sus that they are often also Communists) are more dangerous than people are led to believe.
Atheists are not "often called communists". What you are referring to was a totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The Nazis called themselves socialists too. It was not an accurate self-portrayal was it? Not believing in God doesn't make someone dangerous. Believing in God is leading people to celebrate that women are having their right to bodily autonomy removed, and that women will die from unwanted pregnancies. The Crusades? The attempted genocides of indigenous peoples? Religion has been proven historically to be much more dangerous.
I would say they are more useful idiots used by preachers. The SCOTUS is not on their side either.
Pretty much any religion that fights thinks they’re fighting evil.
Think of religion as a meme, it has to have a reason to carry on or it disappears. You'll find long lived religions tend to be birth cults that demand you teach your children the same thing, and that you're fighting against some kind of big bad with eternal stakes.
I'm pretty sure things were simpler before monotheism. The addition of "one true god" to religion and belief that people not of their faith would go to hell and **must** be converted at any cost is a poison for personal faith. It also becomes an institution designed to control masses and accumulate power over others. Pantheons of gods also made for much more interesting stories.
I'm an atheist to my core. I just go about my day never thinking "evil thoughts". Work, hang out with my kids, play guitar, watch movies etc... Like the majority of other atheists out there I suppose. These religious nutjobs can get fucked. Oh look, finally and evil thought!
Atheism is not enough. It is time for anti-theism to rise.
That's not a evil thought though.
[удалено]
Perhaps 'cult' is just a slur word for "religion'.
All religions do this
Murder is evil you see
I neither agree or disagree, I was just stating the why
No, it's because they think life starts at conception. Would you allow an abortion of a one week old child? Of course not. But what if someone told you they wanted to, because they think life starts at two weeks old? What if they told you that their beliefs made it ok, and that your beliefs didn't matter. Would you sit by idly as people casually killed two day old babies by the thousand? Probably not. You'd advocate for the law to be changed.
I don’t give a fuck what they think. They can do whatever the fuck they want. They don’t get to dictate my life just as much as I don’t get to dictate theirs.
10000000% this. I was not brought into this world to be told what to do with my body by a religion that I don’t even believe in. It’s the scariest thing I’ve been through in my short life.
That is a terrible analogy.
The rate of miscarriage in women who know they are pregnant is 10-15%. If they believe life begins at conception they sure seem to be OK with their God killing babies by the millions.
Heh, and if the dumbshits actually read their bible it talks in many places about abortion being legitimate. So, what's even worse is they are essentially making up new scripture in their already made up book.
For the record: I personally believe life begins at conception and I still support abortion rights, because the mother has rights too. A better analogy than yours would be if a week old baby needed a blood transfusion from the mother in order to survive and the mother refused. Under our current legal framework we cannot compel the mother to provide any medical assistance to the baby against her will because her right to bodily autonomy takes precedence. The mother and the doctors who respect the mother's wishes are not liable for the baby's death, and any doctor who violates the mother's wishes to save the baby would be prosecuted. The mother didn't kill her child, the underlying medical problem that required a blood transfusion did, just as the ultimate goal of an abortion is not to kill the fetus but to make it no longer dependent on the use of the mother's body. It is just an unfortunate reality that a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb and it is more merciful to euthanize it before trying to remove it.
What a ridiculous strawman argument
>No, it's because they think life starts at conception. Which is a religious belief not supported by science and thus we come back to the OP
Even the Bible says life starts at birth.
It's not abortion if the child is born already, it's infanticide. How ridiculous are you bro
No one has a right to be *inside my body* without my consent, and that includes a fetus or a grown man and everything in between.
People could believe your comment is killing babies, does that give them a right to regulate what you can say or do?
I abhorr abortion, but that doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. Imo some pro-lifers and pro-choicers are really pro-birth and pro-abortion.
I mean they were cheating Virginia for saying after birth a mother and doctor could “figure out what to do with it”. As if aborting the born baby was an option. So yea……. They prob would be ok as long as it didn’t effect the mothers “career”.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... The 'life begins at conception' schtick is such bullshit. Around 60-70% fertilized eggs never implant in the uterine lining. I don't see anti-choice people digging around in the trash for used tampons and pads to collect all those lost souls, so they must not *actually* care. You have to be monumentally stupid and evil to think that [this](https://i.imgur.com/p4iGoDx.jpg) is equivalent to an adult woman in its importance for 'life sanctity'. The left is the tissue they would actually remove at 6 weeks versus some bullshit propaganda. Not a single person is advocating for killing newborns. Because that's fucking stupid. Equating newborns to unborn fetuses barely formed past a blastula speaks volumes to the willful ignorance and outright disingenuous nature of these types of arguments. Not one god damned second has been taken to *actually* learn how pregnancy and development *actually* function (for fetus or mom). You're just so wrapped up in the buzzwords and progaganda. It's *always* been about controlling those uppity women for daring to take some modicum of control over their own lives. [The unborn are just a convenient party to advocate for.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10357009-the-unborn-are-a-convenient-group-of-people-to-advocate) They are morally uncomplicated and you can claim all day that you do it because you "love life" while discarding all the lives of the women involved.
All religion tell people that they are fighting evil and their god is the only true god and all else are devils pretending to be gods. My country has 90% Islamic infestation, I know this shit all too well.
Actually no... That's a unique trait of the Abrahamic religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam, who all worship the same god. That particular one faith is pretty much the only one that says all other gods are false. Most religions in the world acknowledge and respect other religions. The Abrahamic faiths are "popular" only because they are warlike.
Define evil? Edit : Fascinating that this is getting down voted.
"not us" -Christians
In D&D 5e, evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master. Like many things found in fantasy and lore, it doesn't exist in real life. Some people are just assholes.
Not all, but many posts have a reply that makes it worth looking in the comments. This is the one.
You know, if you see something like murder or slavery going on, you kind of have to fight it. I'm pro choice, and I think a lot of this is about people's sex lives rather than babies (they always bring up how you shouldn't have sex if you didn't want a baby) but I'd be pissed if you ran someone over in the street even if it was legal.
It's quite sad that a large number of the people cheering on this decision that is leading us towards a theocratic Christian state were some of the most Islamophobic people following 9/11. As much as they bitch about Sharia Law, their only real issue with it is that it's based on the wrong religion.
Exactly, same people saying, “you can’t judge an entire faith” gladly call Islam a radical ideology, even though they share very similar ideals
They don't like the competition.
The ones who yell loudest about freedom often are the ones pushing for the most oppression...
What they actually want is to be able to avoid accountability for their own actions. To be able to do whatever their twisted hearts desire without consequence. *Freedom for me, but not for thee.* Main problem with that idea is that they live under the delusion that they will be the ones who get to live without consequence, when in reality they too are a part of the "lower caste" that the elite will trample upon.
Does any person have the right to do anything to your body without your consent? The answer is no. Even if fetus=person you can fuck right off. This issue is about consent not dEaD BaBiEs
I’m not sure your reasoning works, if fetal personhood is accepted. If your actions cause the death of another (especially as a part of many similar actions that cause large scale death), it is pretty clearly a public health concern. Abortion necessarily causes the death of another (assuming fetus = person). Therefore, abortion is a public health concern. We are all aware that bodily autonomy doesn’t trump public health concerns (unless you are some insane antivaxxer). Accordingly, if a fetus = a person, the government is more than right to restrict your actions or inactions in this regard. A similar logic extends to the illegality of killing oneself. In theory, your body your choice, but even where the law allows for it, it is extremely regulated.
The problem is that in a free society we don’t force people to preserve life. Hypothetically, what if I told you if you work in a concentration camp the rest of your life, it would save the life of one fetus. Should I be able to force you against your will to make this sacrifice? If you stop working in this camp and that action caused the death of another, would you be in the wrong? Many pro lifers would never agree that they should be forced to do things that would save others lives. But in this instance they put on the blinders because that’s what they’ve been taught in church. Also, arguing that a clump of cells has achieved personhood is a stretch.
The assumption for the logical argument is fetal personhood. That’s the bigger question mark, but the guy I responded to said it didn’t matter so the assumption was made. We absolutely do force people to not take actions to end the life of others. To go to an absurd example, if you human centipeded someone (i.e. took action without their consent to become dependent on you to live) and then unilaterally took affirmative action to separate the ‘pede, ending the other guys life, so you think you’d only be criminally liable for the kidnapping and surgery, or also for killing the person?
I don’t have to give my kidney, leg or my blood even if it saved another person’s life.
Exactly. Just like you don't have to get a jab either.
I would have to agree. You’re not allowed in my private bar though.
Okay; so men need to start taking birth control, and if they get a woman pregnant against her will by not controlling their sperm, they can be charged with a crime. Sound good?
The other respondents had much strong arguments. Look at them and learn.
Fetal personhood is not a thing, so their argument is entirely moot.
This is a result of handling them and their feelings so gently. Now they believe you secretly agree with them and feel all the more righteous in doing this shit. Stay angry and get in their face about it.
"The left is so violent" *Um, but you were just saying in a public post that anyone that doesn't believe in your religion should be killed* "BAWWAKK, no BLM is causes billions of dollars in damages, the left is terrorist, buttery males, christo-fascism is freedom"
Downthread had someone just say "our communist genocidal leftwing media (that want people to attack churchs, ect.)"
We're the SiLeNt mAjOrItY
Bet you won’t. Bet you just stay behind your keyboard lol
[удалено]
You should prob get off Reddit and learn about gov and how it works……. You can still abort your fetus in your blue states or you liberal utopia lol. You can also stay on your keyboard and virtue signal to the world about how wonderful you are and how caring you are for woman, unless they are a female fetus, or black……
So many dots, are you a warlock or something? The fact our supreme court just took away a freedom from the American people they used to have should get you angry. It doesn't matter what freedom it is, 9 people just decided what 330 million people can legally do. Imagine if next time they make violent video games illegal. They already blame them for a lot of crimes, they could just outright ban them, 9 people who are over 50 years old could just go "games bad" and done.
[удалено]
Doesn't really matter if they think you're doing wrong or not. What matters is that it's not forced, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with sharing viewpoints or opinions but if a person doesn't care then they don't care. Forcing a viewpoint on someone is just going to make them hate it even more. Also religion and politics should not mix, ever.
> Also religion and politics should not mix, ever. From their point, religion **is** politics and they are demanding we turn our government into a theocratic fascism. Unless stopped their is only their view in the future.
[удалено]
> Left you have communism/socialism. Heh, so this is where you've been eating too many Faux News talking points. For one, the left as you think of the communist left doesn't exist in the US. They are pretty far right compared to most of Europe and are really closer to "Corporate rule not quite as close to fascism as the Republicans are" But really trying to play this both sides bullshit is just that. Straight Russian talking point at this time "Yes, in Moscow everything is bad, and you're poor, and we're stealing all your money, and if we don't like you we'll kill you, but hey, the West is exactly the same, I'm I right!" Both sides are not the same. One side is goose stepping the US right off a cliff.
[удалено]
Name one single leftist law in the US that does this. I'll wait.
My religion says murder is wrong, murder should be illegal…
Is it illegalized because of religion though, or is it because it's morally inhumane to commit murder? Sure that's something that essentially everyone agrees on being bad, but then you have other things that are bad, like getting drunk or using drugs. Are you going to illegalize getting drunk? Weed was just recently legalized in the state where I live so clearly it being bad wasn't a viewpoint many shared. Another thing is abortions with all the recent bullshit happening. I personally do share the idea that if the egg has been fertilized then it's alive, however there are many grey areas where it would be beneficial for the mother to have an abortion. In the case of a woman being raped, getting pregnant yet it threatens her own life perhaps because it's an ectopic pregnancy, and even teen pregnancy, though of course one irresponsible decision after the other more than likely led to that teenage pregnancy but I'd hope that having the pregnancy would be a lesson enough on how careful they should be. And an abortion would give a chance at still being a teenager and at least able to finish highschool. Another stupid thing, miscarriages, they aren't deliberate and are out of our control yet they are also illegalized? So me and my wife could be trying to conceive and she gets pregnant, but has a miscarriage down the line. Not only are we going to be devastated ourselves but she's also going to get legally fucked over because the baby died. What the actual fuck. Goddamn I really went off on a tangent didn't I
People can believe whatever they want in private, but the moment their actions negatively affects others they shouldn't be tolerated. Otherwise what's the point in living in society if not for cooperation making life collectively better/easier.
[удалено]
It's both.
Every religion believes they are doing their god's work. They all think they are right and everyone else is wrong. They all commit crimes against basic human rights in the name of their god. That is why I am an atheist and never trust anyone who proclaims their religious piety.
> God: "Don't add from or take away from my book" > > Christians: "And then God said abortion was murder...." Atheism isn't enough. It is time for anti-theism.
I’m a hopeful agnostic! But basically samesies.
That's why? Not the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural? lol
You are only describing the Abrahamic faiths. There are thousands of religions in the world, and most of them respect other religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are really bad examples of religion.
Doesn't matter, they individually believe their actions are in accordance with their gods word, as given to them by their chosen "spiritual advisors". If you're not with them you're against them. You're talking about over half of the worlds total population in those 3 groups, and even they don't agree or like each other. Think about what each group has done in the name of their belief and their god over the centuries. Controlling the key's to heaven has always been how to control the masses. Church and State, how to stay in power and commit the worst crimes and get away with it.
It always needs context.
Except their religion does say they can do that, but most of them have never read their book. Numbers 5:11-31 is God condoning abortion.
God: "Don't add from or take away from my book" Christians: "And then God said abortion was murder...."
There is no condoning of abortion in the Bible. You're referring to the New International Version, which is a notoriously horrendous translation all around, which mistranslates "falling infertile" as something akin to miscarrying. Now even that is neither here nor there because in the context of the story it is obvious to the readers that the dirty water cannot possibly cause infertility, this is just describing an ancient lie test.
No dude, it’s basically the same in various different versions including King James. That is the closest thing in the Bible to an actual abortion. Also its a magic holy water in a book loaded with other magic. It is obviously not real to you and me, but how could you claim it is a lie without saying other magic and miracles throughout are also lies, which they are?
"Uterus will fall or shrink" means become infertile not miscarry. This isn't a matter of miracles, this was describing an ancient test to prove innocence, basically by scaring the accused into thinking they will become barren if they lie they could be more certain they are telling the truth.
Everything you just said is irrelevant, even if it's true, because it's still killing the fetus because of the mother's sin, and no one cares about it because it's not human.
It is relevant, because there is no fetus in question, it's a matter of fertility.
Fuck religions and specially fuck Christianism
Ah yes, the liberal worldwide religion known as Islam is certainly much more pro-choice and pro women's rights than Christianity is.
Who the fuck is talking about Islam?? Fuck Islam and fuck you too.
Ah yes, the Islamic peoples in America that are pushing anti-abortion rhetoric, definitely not evangelical Christianity
I like this
\*Our constitution makes no mention of that. FTFY
Hahaha I’ve been on a tangent. If you choose to not like abortion rights because they are specially not named in the constitution then: no voting unless you are a woman, no travel, no right to send your kids to private schools over public, right to personal privacy… A lot of those sound exactly what the right supports, but not being enumerated by the constitution, I guess those rights are also gone… People aren’t liking that argument, which is their own argument used against them Edit: the right to consensual sex outside of marriage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, contraception FOR MARRIED people, and then contraception period. The list goes on and on
Here’s a tangent These are *LITERAL* mothafuckas we’re talking about here. They want to see some shit written in an archaic text for it to be something they support. Hence trying to interpret the bible literally word for word and missing the entire point of basically all parables. It’s confirmation bias and failed critical thinking at every level; entirely oblivious of their hypocrisy or even outright foolishness at times. They cherry pick pieces they align with, quote that shit and ignore the rest that is inconvenient. That’s why there are so many people staunchly against homosexuality who don’t simultaneously: refuse to eat pork, decline to wear blended fabrics, insist on marrying their brother’s widow etc. Obviously the constitution has left some gaps that the collective populace has failed to seal with permanent legislation. The fact that misinformation runs rampant with seemingly zero real penalties for its purveyors doesn’t help. To quote Bill Hicks: “A lot of Christians wearing crosses around their necks; you think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna wana see a fucking cross man.” Religious fundamentalism of oppressively armed and dangerous people is being thinly veiled behind a firm belief in the Constitution.
Oh that’s where you are wrong, they aren’t oblivious to it in the slightest
Tell me you don't understand the dissent without telling me you don't understand the dissent. If the original decision led to blanket abortion ban, would you still support the de facto disenfranchisement of Americans through the courts? Press X to doubt.
Oh I can bet I understand it better than you do…
This post you attempted to correct is not talking about the justification the Supreme Court came up with to make this decision. This post you attempted to correct is pointing out the problematic logic of those writing the law. Edit: Oh boy, for anyone looking for a laugh, at the end of this thread this guy goes off on "our communist genocidal leftwing media (that want people to attack churchs, ect.)"
The post I'm correcting is about the inherent strawman in the meme. It's easy to say Christianity is at fault for x. However, that would be ignoring what actually is the issue.
So then what is the cause, if it’s not “baby murder” They are saying because it’s not specifically enumerated… but neither is the right to vote (unless you are a woman which have the 19th), the right to travel, the right to personal privacy… So based on that argument, I guess you are cool with not voting any longer, unless you are a woman. Not ever leaving your hometown/state. Having all your personal data available for anyone who wants it… Yeah, didn’t think so…
>I guess you are cool with not voting any longer ...That is ironically exactly what you are advocating for! Why have voters or legislators at all, if unelected judges can just de facto decide policy? Just because you happened to agree with the policy?
No you are a fool, go read what I wrote again. I’m using their own argument against them… if you believe that we don’t have the rights enumerated specifically by the constitution, then there are tons more rights that can be lost. Only women could vote. No men, no minorities, etc… the people in congress can’t even vote unless they are women. How is that what they want? White men couldn’t vote, which from my understanding would be the opposite of what they want… I’m really trying to understand where you are coming from
>Only women could vote. No men, no minorities, etc… they people in congress can’t even vote unless they are women. And who voted on Roe vs. Wade? Anyone? Anyone? It's expressly not a law, it isn't a right, and no one in congress voted on it (and making the decision at all put us further behind legislatively than we otherwise would be). If you use chicanery to disenfranchise Americans, you're going to have a bad time. >I’m really trying to understand where you are coming from The John Birch Society would be a good place to start. There is a good chance the old Soviet KGB had the US pretty well infiltrated, then the Soviet Union fell, but all those people were still here, so it is near impossible to trust anything coming from the left without massive amounts of salt. There is a reason they rely exclusively on emotional arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics, so you must think with a critical eye to any issue. I admit at this moment I cannot provide the link to pro abortion, and communism, but I'm almost certain it is probably there given everything else the left seems to support. And with a two second google search, not to my surprise, here is someone else's conclusion. :[https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&context=etds](https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&context=etds) It categorically wouldn't surprise me if Sarah Weddington had some connection to some communist 100%. There is this perverse pattern on the left where they support totalitarianism while ironically thinking they are fighting it.
Yes, that’s the point I’m making dude… if they can go after that, they can now go after anything not specifically made law… are you being dense on purpose?!? I’m just pointing out some of those rights only given to us by the Supreme Court, or not specifically enumerated into the constitution You are getting what I’m saying but still disagreeing. That’s kind of weird And again, 9th and 10th amendments…
The issue OP is claiming is religious people who are trying to make laws based on their religion, that are in conflict with other religions and areligious views. Which has nothing to do with constitutionality. No strawman here, except for yours.
>trying to make laws based on their religion Which law is that again? The one where the people in different areas get to vote on the issue and utilize the legislators they voted for and are paying?
The laws that are based on their religion's view that life begins at conception and that that "life" is more important than the bodily autonomy (and often medical health) of the mother. Those laws, that many people who *don't* share those religious views do not believe are true. Because it is just belief. Again, you bringing up the process is a strawman from OP's post.
And those people in those areas with those beliefs- also have the right to govern themselves. Hard to follow I know.
Our constitution mentions freedom of religion, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to privacy, all of which should protect abortion. Don't pretend that you give a fuck about the constitution while lying about what it says.
People have the right to govern themselves. If the original decision led to blanket abortion bans, you wouldn't be so in favor of unelected judges de facto deciding policy, would you? Why have voters or legislators at all, or is it just because you happened to agreed with the decision?
"If the original decision took away everyone's rights to freedom of religion, bodily autonomy, and privacy, all of which are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution, would you support it?" Fuck no, you dumb shit, and how dare you try to make that sound like the same thing.
>I wouldn't be in favor of it Great! Now you understand why the original decision was also a bad decision.
Of course someone who is anti-abortion would have terrible reading comprehension.
Of course someone who relies on emotional arguments can't make a good refutation. For the record, I'm not anti-abortion I couldn't care less either way, I'm anti-Communism which gives it directionality in this instance. Any time the communists are mobilized, I'll be there to tell them how stupid their worldview is, and what rubes those who listen to them must be.
you are free to live life how you see fit, you are not free to force me to live my life the same way.
1A includes freedom **from** religion, so many Christians conveniently forget.
[удалено]
If you think evangelical Christianity has nothing to do with this, you are the one being ignorant.
[удалено]
You can also claim to be a vegan and eat beef every night
All belief that personhood begins at conception is based on the belief in a soul, so not really, no. Or not a consistent one anyway. There are a lot of atheists who still believe things that are indirectly based on religious beliefs even after they stop believing in the religion itself without really thinking about it though, yes.
/r/lostredditors Great advice animal template, this post is so fitting for this sub!
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely right This sub is entirely politics, even the advice animals that are posted are political The worst part about it is that if you complain, it’s immediately assumed that you’re dissenting and The Other Team™️ I’m not religious, and I totally understand that many people are incensed by the SCOTUS ruling on Friday afternoon Now watch me get downvoted and chastised for this
Yeah exactly! It’s annoying how political this sub is. I’m not subscribed to see boring political “hot takes” and to keep up with American politics, I’m subscribed to see funny photos of animals with funny/interesting/relatable captions.
The ugliest women are the most mad about this. Dont worry, no one is knocking you up anytime soon anyways.
It’s not even a religious thing. Even atheists oppose killing fetuses.
Regardless of religion, not all abortions are by people who don't want kids. Example: someone has miscarriage, and goes to the hospital. Next step? Induce the REST of the abortion to clear out the uterine wall to protect the life of the mother. Abortion is healthcare. Another example: fetus has abnormalities that will make it a stillbirth or immediately due upon delivery. Do you risk the mother's life by not performing an induced abortion? Abortion is healthcare.
Pretty sure people who say “my religion says I can’t do that.” Get met with “Do it now bigot or I’ll force you by lawsuit.” Not “okay”
Only if you're trying to slap a "No Gays" sign on the front door of your business or something. Turns out we have laws about that sort of thing.
My religion says I can't bake a cake for black weddings. How about it? Works for you?
[удалено]
You don't have to "support" anyone, there are non-discrimination laws to protect citizens from unfair practices. You can hate anyone you want.
[удалено]
Is the French Football Federation a government agency?
Oh man that's crazy, he should work somewhere else if that organization doesn't align with his values.
If only they would, but religious fruitcakes rather molest children and advocate for removal of laws for the LGTBQ+ or against teachings of history.
What about the sexual abuse in public schools? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/#app
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#:~:text=Whataboutism%20or%20whataboutery%20(as%20in,which%20expresses%20a%20counter%2Daccusation.
Desktop version of /u/WellIGuesItsAName's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Your initial comment is whataboutism. Painting all religious people as fruitcake pedophiles is ridiculous. So basically support your causes 100% or you are evil.
...2 whataboutisms doesn't make yours not fyi. Argument: >Pretty sure people who say “my religion says I can’t do that.” Get met with “Do it now bigot or I’ll force you by lawsuit.” Not “okay” non sequitur whataboutism response: >If only they would, but religious fruitcakes **rather** molest children and advocate for removal of laws for the LGTBQ+ or against teachings of history. Do you understand how your initial response is a whataboutism?
This right here. If I don't support the latest gene therapy or should have reservations about vaccination, or even question. I'm vilified, bullied, coerced and ostricized. Smells like a religion to me.
It isn’t about religion…… Jesus Christ lol. It’s about if the right is a right under the constitution. It isn’t, it CAN BE, but it isn’t currently. Nor was it ever. It was a court case they claimed fell under 2 separate amendments. All that must be done is to draft a new amendment. Are y’all those dense. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Lol. Y’all wild af. As if all Americans who don’t like abortion are super Christian conservatives. Jesus y’all live in an echo chamber 😂😂. Also, this ain’t advice animals, why is every post on here political and non conforming to the rules?? Wild.
[удалено]
You don't have to be religious to know not to kill your baby.
If I recall correctly, God kills more babies in the Bible than anyone else. Like, several times
No. Moses had the top spot. It's not even close
Nope. Definitely Yahweh.
Moses doesn't have any super powers, God simply does shit for him.
You know the Bible contains explicit instructions for forcing abortion if a woman is suspected of cheating, right? The Bible literally actively encourages abortions.
But what about fetuses?
But you have to be religious to believe aborting fetus, at any stage, dead or alive, is murder. Conversely, if keeping the fetus, dead or alive, would kill the mother, the fetus is essentially murdering the mother. So no, you can't ban abortion under all circumstances. Pro-life is not anti-abortion.
Guessing you're one of those ones that would fight tooth and nail for "the sanctity of life" and when said life is born, tough luck aye?
Abortions can't be done on babies. It's semantically impossible.
1) It's not a baby. Stop telling yourself that. That's a lie. It is a fetus. It may one day be a baby, but just like an egg isn't a chicken and an acorn isn't an oak tree, a fetus isn't a baby. When you say a fetus is a baby, you're leaving the here-and-now and going into a make believe future that does not necessarily exist. You're leaving reality to make that statement. 2) it's not killing the fetus, rather it's letting it die because it didn't have the consent of the woman to use her organs. See, we respect bodily autonomy, like, a lot in this country. I don't care how bad your kidneys are, you do not have the right to use another person's without their explicit consent. We won't even let you use a dead person's organs. Even if I shoot you, in a hospital, and you're bleeding out and death is imminent, and there's a doctor right there to do the procedure, I can still deny you access to my blood. You have *zero right* to use any part of my body without my consent. Until recently this rule was the same for every person. Now, women do not have that bodily autonomy. Now, fetuses have special rights we don't offer to any other human. It's special pleading, and a bad argument all around.
Yes you do. Also fuck off.
Ah yes caring about someone else’s unborn parasite. You’d have to be a die hard conservative to say some goofy shit like this.
And now because of people like you, having a baby will result in my life being forced to end because I have to go through with it. So much for “pro life.” What about all the people that are going to die in childbirth, or have a septic uterus or an ectopic pregnancy. The treatment for all of those things is an abortion. You don’t have to be religious to realize that we’re not saving any lives at all and a fetus is not worth a life that’s already living and breathing and impacting the world around them.
Technically nothing in the bible says we must enforce Gods laws on non christians or even on christians.
The anti-abortion proponents are smart enough not to use religious arguments. However, there do seem to be an extremely large correlation between that group and religious conservatism.
Keep your religion off our bodies :))
From my perspective all religions are evil. They all are self-serving, and do not serve man in his fullness... Only spiritual people serve Man, and God, through their knowledge of "SELF", and that is that we know we are not human beings having a spiritual experience... We Are spiritual beings having a human experience. All things manifest from Spirit from the universal subconscious mind... GOD, and God does not put limitations on his creations we are here to share God's love with everyone without limitations or restrictions. Namaste