citing the bible seems like a quick way to an appeal
Citing the bible seems like a good way to undermine your position. The bible 100% is pro-abortion. The bible 100% says life begins at birth. Treating a fetus like a person is one of the least Christian things the right does.
Edit: just going to post this right up front here. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8KShXpd/
Please help me with this one. I’m genuinely interested in understanding this. Got any sources?
Exodus 21:22 differentiates between causing a miscarriage and murder.
Numbers 5 has the Lord ordering an abortion, complete with instructions for how to give one and why (suspicions of a wife being unfaithful).
Genesis 2:7 describes a soul entering the body with the first breath.
If they really want to cite old testament verses, they should also refer to the Talmud.
Genesis 2:7 describes a soul entering the body with the first breath.
This one always feels rather flimsy to me. It deals with God breathing life into the first man created. It doesn't necessarily say anything about fetuses or embryos.
Not that it makes much of a difference, since it's ultimately just an interpretation of a creation myth that shouldn't sway public policy one way or another.
But what other precedent would you cite?
From the Bible? The other two verses quoted are fine. But honestly anyone who looks to the Bible for truth isn't going to accept my interpretation over their preferred priest, pastor, or whatever.
Exodus 21 describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.
So clearly a fetus is not alive enough to trigger the life for a life clause. That's probably the clearest example.
Also here is a much better explanation than I can provide: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8KShXpd/
I knew it was going to be Dr Dan before I even opened the link.
Highly recommend everyone check him out and his podcast Data Over Dogma. It's a bit corny at times, but he covers all the hottest biblical misinformation of the day.
He's got a PhD in religious studies and specializes in all the ways people negotiate with the text. He's a mormon but his cohost is an atheist, so they truly take a measured approach to interpretation.
You can also follow him on most socials @maklelan
Watching him rip a youtube scholar a new butt is always entertaining.
Normally, yes, but who knows what the Tribunal of Six will do.
Also, that instance name is awesome lol
Har the SCOTUS ruled that the Bible is the highest text of the land yet?
With this SCOTUS? They'd probably tell you to keep going and quote even more.
For all the rhetoric that Americans heap on the Iranian government's theocratic authoritarian abuse of their citizens, there are a lot of folks that seem to look at it and go: You know, this would be pretty sweet with a Jeebus re-branding.
(Cartman voice): This is going to be so easy you guys. All we have to do to make Christian laws is take regular old authoritarian theocratic laws and cross out words like "Allah" and "Quran" and replace them with "Jesus".
We already have a group of six Mullahs whose pronouncements cannot be challenged and who are in their position for life.
Yup. They hate to be reminded of it, too. They are basically the same thing, they are both adherents to Abrahamic religion, as well as being regressive, hypocritical cons.
It gets even worse for them when you point out they worship the same god. Oh, they really hate that. Just ask them to name their god when they go on about "God" in a provincial way. It's Yahweh, aka Allah. Same thing.
You know, this would be pretty sweet with a Jeebus re-branding.
The history of the early church evangelizing, in one sentence.
I’m over the south. The Bible this the Bible that. They act like there is only one made up “god” in the world and we all have to obey him no matter what if we believe in that “god” or no god.
Might as well cite Harry Potter. The words from "the" bible have no legal meaning in a secular nation.
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV 1982),” the opinion read.
Jesus sanctified bread and wine too. Does that make them human?
Jesus sanctified bread and wine too. Does that make them human?
No. Because they decide what to interpret.
Why?
Because we do little to combat it. To teach a child something is right or wrong there should be consequences.
Time to move to Alabama, freeze a bunch of embryos, and claim a fuck ton of dependents on my taxes.
Apparently in Georgia, a fetus in utero can count for a small tax credit. But generally, these psychos are not actually interested in the embryos themselves, merely in the concept as it relates to controlling the reproductive lives of other people
If the "small tax credit" is in any way different from a regular dependent deduction, then a fetus in utero is not the same as a child ex utero.
Cut that fucking state loose we don't need them.
Around 36% of voters there went for Biden, and only a 46% turnout. So a lot of people who didn't vote for Trump.
Alabama is becoming a theocratic regime, just like Iran. That's terrifying.
“the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life,”
anyone who claims to believe this and doesn't spend every possible moment fucking and popping babies out is a hypocrite.
I had a.. let's call it a "discussion", with a coworker once regarding this and described how the IVF process ends with more than 1 viable embryo and the rest may be kept on ice or just destroyed. I told him that if he had it his way, IVF would be illegal, stopping those people desperate enough to spend 10's of thousands on 1+ rounds of IVF to have a kid.
You could tell from his reaction that he had no idea and he didn't even really believe what I was saying. I kindof wish I could talk to him again and remind him of the conversation but we know people like that never admit they were wrong.
Y'all-Qaeda strikes again
It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding ‘unborn life’ from legal protection.
-Alabama Supreme Court Associate Justice Jay Mitchell in the majority’s opinion.
This sounds like a fancy judge way of saying, "Alabama, you really shit the bed on this one." Is this Malicious Compliance?
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News