So Alabama's supreme court can rule on mere belief?
“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote.
That's how it looks to me.
Seems like the whole thing is in direct contradiction with the establishment clause.
It seems clear at this point they no longer care about the law or precedent or tradition, they just want to punish and subjugate people they don't like.
If only SCOTUS didn't have a right-wing religious majority...
Our entire form of government is antithetical to Christianity. Christians need to keep that religious shit to their homes and churches.
I boggles the mind, this image of god nonsense. If we are made in gods image then gods image also includes Meth addicts and sexual offenders? God must be one crazy bugger.
I would love to know what this so called justice official's stance is on the Death Penalty; for or against.
I will look it up later as I am being lazy at the moment.
Oppressive theist group argues amongst itself about wha their imaginary friend in the sky wants.
They don’t care what it wants. They care how they can frame what they want to seem like what it wants. What they want is pretty clearly spelled out here: more babies.
Oppressive theist group argues amongst itself about wha their imaginary friend in the sky wants.
Maybe they could exclusively focus on that for a while and get back to us if they ever come to an agreement on whose religion is the only correct one?
Meanwhile the rest of us could get on with the business of progressing society without their constant interference.
As horrendous as this ruling is, I'm also pissed at the pro-forced birthers that are upset by this ruling. It's so intellectually dishonest to object to this ruling when it uses the same justifications they use to oppose abortion.
These people pick issues to be passionate on but never actually put in the effort to research. And not just whether their position makes any sense, but what the downstream effects of the position would mean.
The politicians who write these anti-abortion laws are even more lazy. This is literally their job and they should have seen this coming. They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn't, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.
They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn't, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.
You can't square that circle. If you codify your religious myth that "life begins at conception" into law in order to ban abortions, then you also have to outlaw IVF by the very nature of the procedure.
But they do want to outlaw it. They just didn't want everyone to know until AFTER the election. That way no one could do anything to stop it.
Unfortunately any theology shouldn’t impact lawmaking.
That statement is rather ambiguous as it could be read to mean it's unfortunate that theology can't impact lawmaking, or that it's unfortunate that theology is impacting lawmaking. Theology shouldn't impact lawmaking and the fact that it is is the problem. Republicans have been steadily chipping away at separation of church and state for decades now and we're seeing the impact.
Any hint that a lawmaker is letting religious beliefs dictate their legislation should be an automatic disqualification from office. Politicians shouldn't even be allowed to mention their religion while campaigning. Instead it's becoming de rigueur for politicians to affirm their faith on a regular basis, and we regularly have politicians citing religious beliefs in debates about legislation.
The only part of your comment that I disagree with is "unfortunately".
As someone who has two living IVF babies, 8 frozen embryos remaining, and is also Christian, this line struck a particularly strong chord:
"Nobody understands more that an embryo is not a child, than the person yearning for that embryo to be a child."
Knowing multiple people who have gone through IVF procedures, and have had it fail time and time again, i felt that as well. They were heartbroken, time and time again.
One lf them has a child on the way, and the other has stopped trying, for those who wonder :)
Who could've foreseen that restricting reproductive rights could go both ways?
Can I just ask why more babies being born is seen as a moral good? I'm dumbfounded because I've honestly never in fifty years heard this talking point before.
It's really this simple. The bible says "Be fruitful and multiply"
When the line "be fruitful and multiply" was first written there were fewer humans on the planet than now live in Houston.
Ehhh, a bit more than Houston. By 2000 BCE there were 20,000,000 humans on the planet, though I believe the majority of those were in China. Genesis was written between 1500-1200 BCE.
A bunch of white people in the united states are worried about birth rates because immigrant birth rates are high whereas white birth rates are on the decline. They're worried about white people becoming a minority because even though if you asked them they would say no, they know that minorities are treated poorly here.
Yep. It's called "replacement theory" and it's a core belief among racist organizations like Nazis, the Aryan nation and the KKK. It's also talked about constantly on Fox News and other right wing media.
This is also behind the trans panic and concurrent anti-LGBTQ legislation in conservative states.
Sure, they'll package it with scripture and moralizing, but in the end? It's all about fear.
I wish everyone would just fuck everyone once and for all so we're all the same god damned race.
You know damn well they’d find something else to divide us, you just tryna get laid is all 😏
Because a man in a book said something about going forth and multiplying
What they could go after next:
- Same sex marriage
- Gay sex
- Porn
- Contraception
- Vasectomy
- Divorce
- Interracial marriage
What they ~~could~~ will go after next:
They already are. And have been for a very long time.
Yesterday's Last Week Tonight showed Tommy Tubervile making that realization in real time. It was pretty incredible.
Would that be the same guy who had trouble grasping the concept of "you don't actually need to swear on a bible" live on air?
Maybe they should have learned the complete definition of abortion before banning it
This people are so stupid and they make our laws.
"I think the biggest concerns are that people elsewhere forget about us and they think, 'Oh they're just the conservative state, and they're all country bumpkins. Don't worry it will never happen here.'
"And the next thing you know, it is happening in other states that are ultra-conservative."
As a progressive in Texas...fuckin YEAH. Some of us are trying to bring reality back and it's really annoying to get lumped in with the crazies.
Life is about navigating one's principles versus one's realities.
Xians do exceedingly badly at this in the meta-modern world.
Gotta Love an argument about what god would want while people suffer.
Feel sorry for those caught up in this and I hope some have a light bulb moment.
Leopard's are feasting on faces rn.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.