Why should religious exemptions to laws be limited to conservatives?

BMS

Well-known member
But force traumatized rape victims to spend 10 months enslaved to her rapist?
Well the transactivist influencing UK Police college hate speech guidance, which doesnt represent law btw, said women rape victims should 'reframe their trauma'.

But rape isnt choice; so not pro-choice abortion.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I have posted this before:



The attribution of innocence or guilt to a nonsentient being is meaningless, but is commonly used by anti-abortionists to create sympathy for the fertilized egg/fetus/embryo

If the founders thought that religion should have been given primacy in law making they would have said so in the Constitution. Instead, there is no mention of a creator, or Jesus or the Bible or any specific religion. And in fact the Bill of Rights says the govt should not establish any religion.

Democracy works by giving the majority the right to run things as long as they are voted into that position.

As for evolution, there are no scientists running productive research programs based on creationism. If you think otherwise, name them.

There is no baby until birth, and the woman should not be obligated to use her body to produce a baby for the man who violently attacked her. Have you no recognition of how traumatic this would be? And it is especially evil that there is no exemption in these RW laws for victims who are as young as 11 or 12 and whose bodies are not ready for pregnancy.
So there is an unborn human whatever you wish to call it. Its not an adult until after it has been born either.
The left keep moaning about discrimination against your created minority groups whilst you support killing unborn humans. Reprehensible
 

BMS

Well-known member
Your moral principles are not shared by everyone, and enduring a pregnancy resulting from a violent attack is indeed a punishment. In other cases, childbearing was not the planned outcome, or the fetus is so abnormal that termination is the humane thing to do. If child-bearing is the consequence of sex that should be accepted, then both parties should bear responsibility, and yet the man is rarely held responsible and even if legally required to pay child support, can often just not do that for years if not decades. Where is the RW outrage about that?

If there is something incompatible with life in the fetus, the woman should not have to continue the pregnancy. Miscarriages can occur at inopportune times when medical assistance is not available, or the woman might have to go through another 5-6 months of pregnancy only to have to go through childbirth and have the baby die almost immediately. Why would anyone force a woman to put herself at risk and go through this?

Romans five is irrelevant in a secular state as is the concept of sin.

A fetus is not a baby, and is not recognized as a person under the law. Therefore there is no equivalence to capital punishment or deaths in war.

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to born people.

Not surprised that Kavanaugh does not recognize any tests that would counter his religious bias in making judgements.

Of course I know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are. Why would I have commented otherwise? Dawkins has spent most of his life working as an evolutionary biologist and attempting to explain these concepts to the general public. I do not see him as an atheist first and foremost, but I can imagine that most creationists do see him that way.

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are as different from each other as the three evangelists, but the point is that all 3 evangelists have made their names through their religious enterprises, whereas the 3 I mentioned have had careers independent of atheism.

I gather you are a man. Do you interact with any women on a regular basis? Have you ever talked with women you might know about abortion or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies? Do you know any women who have had abortions?
When you ask whether the poster is a man. What do you mean by a man?

Seriously! You people dont realistically recognise what the unborn human is and you imagine men who call themselves 'transwomen' can be women.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Prove your claim about JW and acid scars. The vaccine doesn't leave a scar.
Actually, they do. I have one just smaller than a dime on my left bicep. Most everyone I know my age does.

Although the TV show, Outlander, is a fictional show, there is an episode in which the protagonist's vaccine scar figures prominently into the plot, precisely because the author of the book and the producers of the show knew that readers and viewers would know that a vaccine scar is a common thing.

As for proving the common knowledge claim about Jehovah's Witnesses, I sincerely thought they stopped doing it, but here's an article showing some still do.


 

vibise

Well-known member
Sorry but unborn babies exist, most everyone seems to know that our resident scientist.

How can there be a difference between the same thing?

You are a scientist you say?

Unborn babies and fetuses are the same thing.
The term "unborn babies" is just as accurate as "undead people".
 

vibise

Well-known member
Well the transactivist influencing UK Police college hate speech guidance, which doesnt represent law btw, said women rape victims should 'reframe their trauma'.

But rape isnt choice; so not pro-choice abortion.
Rape victims are not given a choice by their attackers, but rape victims should have a choice about any resulting pregnancy.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
The term "unborn babies" is just as accurate as "undead people".
Actually, it's not. "Unborn baby" refers to a baby's location. An undead person refers to a person's physical state of life or death.

Still waiting on you to provide those "physiological differences" I challenged you on.

You made the claim twice, and have been challenged, both times, but have yet to provide any exanples or evidence.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Actually, it's not. "Unborn baby" refers to a baby's location. An undead person refers to a person's physical state of life or death.

Still waiting on you to provide those "physiological differences" I challenged you on.

You made the claim twice, and have been challenged, both times, but have yet to provide any exanples or evidence.
The fetus is physically attached to the woman and is completely dependent on her, whereas that attachment is broken at birth and the newborn can be cared for any anyone.

Here are the physiological changes that take place at birth:

 

BMS

Well-known member
The term "unborn babies" is just as accurate as "undead people".
Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite infact. The former is living the latter dead.
What do you think the opposite of short is? Brown? West? High?

So when you say 'a man' what do you mean?
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
The fetus is physically attached to the woman and is completely dependent on her, whereas that attachment is broken at birth and the newborn can be cared for any anyone.
Correct. But you said a "physiological difference". That is not a physiological difference.

Independence does not determine personhood. If it did, then we could kill anyone on a ventalator or dialysis.
Here are the physiological changes that take place at birth:

First, I find it interesting that somebody who pretends to be a "PhD in biology" would have to look up such a simple thing.

Second, I find it amusing that you did not read the article.

Not only does the article never describe these things as "physiological differences", it affirms that the child has the same organs with the same functions, that just function a little higher after birth.

What you're evidence shows is not that the baby in the womb is not a person, as you claimed, but that the baby in the womb is simply a person at a slightly lower level of development.

Is that your argument now? That people who are at a lower level of development are not people and may be killed?

If not, then you have no argument. If so, then what level of development would be acceptable to you? Would you kill a two month old because he's not as fully developed as a thirty year old? Would you kill a person with mental retardation because he is not fully developed? Would you kill the little girl in our church whose heart did not develop normally?

Just how far does this Final Solution mentality of yours go, Vibise?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Simpletruther

Well-known member
The fetus is physically attached to the woman and is completely dependent on her, whereas that attachment is broken at birth and the newborn can be cared for any anyone.

Here are the physiological changes that take place at birth:

All kinds of changes happen at puberty as well, none of which are relevant to the moral right to life.

Are you suggesting the minute before birth the babY has no moral right to life and can killed at will?
 
Last edited:

Yakuda

Well-known member
Your religious rights aren't a blank check that gives you permission to disregard any law you choose. Religious rights don't give you a free pass to do anything you want.
Where gave I said I want to do what want? This is a great example if leftist intellectual limitations. The govt has no right to infringe on the free expression of my religion. Don't like it? Move to Canada. I'd love to help you move. Leftist morons
 

BMS

Well-known member
The fetus is physically attached to the woman and is completely dependent on her, whereas that attachment is broken at birth and the newborn can be cared for any anyone.

Here are the physiological changes that take place at birth:

What do you mean by 'the woman'
Seriously, the word fetus is the word for you and me when were at that stage. You use the word fetus as though its some kind of different species or creature.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Correct. But you said a "physiological difference". That is not a physiological difference.

Independence does not determine personhood. If it did, then we could kill anyone on a ventalator or dialysis.

First, I find it interesting that somebody who pretends to be a "PhD in biology" would have to look up such a simple thing.

Second, I find it amusing that you did not read the article.

Not only does the article never describe these things as "physiological differences", it affirms that the child has the same organs with the same functions, that just function a little higher after birth.

What you're evidence shows is not that the baby in the womb is not a person, as you claimed, but that the baby in the womb is simply a person at a slightly lower level of development.

Is that your argument now? That people who are at a lower level of development are not people and may be killed?

If not, then you have no argument. If so, then what level of development would be acceptable to you? Would you kill a two month old because he's not as fully developed as a thirty year old? Would you kill a person with mental retardation because he is not fully developed? Would you kill the little girl in our church whose heart did not develop normally?

Just how far does this Final Solution mentality of yours go, Vibise?
It tends to be more convincing to link to official sites to provide technical information in response to people who are not inclined to accept science. If I had typed this out myself you would have dismissed it completely.

The changes described are indeed physiological. What other term would you use to describe them? The switch from dependence on the mother's body is a major physiological change, and organ systems have to undergo functional changes to adapt to life without an umbilical cord.

physiology
noun


the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts.
the way in which a living organism or bodily part functions.

The fetus is not a person under the law. Personhood is not actually defined by science, it is a legal, sociological, religious, political, ethical construct that is informed by science.

The argument that a fetus is not the biological equivalent of a newborn is science-based.

I am not making distinctions between a newborn and a 2-month old and a senior citizen. I have never advocated murdering people with mental retardation or any other abnormalities.

The only relevant distinction in the abortion issue is between a fetus and a newborn.
 

vibise

Well-known member
What do you mean by 'the woman'
Seriously, the word fetus is the word for you and me when were at that stage. You use the word fetus as though its some kind of different species or creature.
I don't get your question. Women are the ones with wombs who go through pregnancy. We do not yet have artificial wombs.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Where gave I said I want to do what want? This is a great example if leftist intellectual limitations. The govt has no right to infringe on the free expression of my religion. Don't like it? Move to Canada. I'd love to help you move. Leftist morons
Right-wingnuts think their freedom of religion is absolute. They don't like it when sensible people point out that it isn't.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Actually, they do. I have one just smaller than a dime on my left bicep. Most everyone I know my age does.

Although the TV show, Outlander, is a fictional show, there is an episode in which the protagonist's vaccine scar figures prominently into the plot, precisely because the author of the book and the producers of the show knew that readers and viewers would know that a vaccine scar is a common thing.

As for proving the common knowledge claim about Jehovah's Witnesses, I sincerely thought they stopped doing it, but here's an article showing some still do.


No, vaccines don't leave scars. I've had all the childhood vaccines and the Pfizer covid vaccine (both in almost the exact same spot) and I have NO scars from any vaccinations whatsoever.

Your article is behind a pay wall.
 
Top