Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Debater Slayer]

I highly doubt the “religious right” (whoever they are) thinks they are on a roll or will be threatening or coming after the issues you listed. Yet, I’ve noticed it sure seems like a lot of progressive liberal abortion supporters don’t mind becoming very hostile, threatening others, slandering those they don’t agree with, using or inciting violence to achieve their goals.

It's natural for people to react with anger or become hostile when someone threatens their safety and/or their basic rights. Banning abortion would threaten the health or even the life of many people. Bearing in mind the kind of damage it can cause to many people's lives, I see it as no less harmful than inciting violence or threatening others. Actually, I would say it is a form of threatening others--it threatens their freedom, health, and, in some cases, their lives.

You probably think these reactions are disproportionate or not understandable, which doesn't surprise me considering your stance on abortion. If you believe a fetus should take priority over any concerns a pregnant adult could have about going through pregnancy and labor, of course you would dismiss the "hostile" or "threatening" reactions to a ruling such as this one that, for many people, could very well be life-changing, and in a drastically negative way.

It’s kind of creepy and pretty ironic you used terminology like “smelling blood”, when so many pro-abortion proponents actually support shedding the blood of pre-born infants. There are well over 2000 abortions a day in the US, 98+ per hour, and about 1 every 37 seconds. That is a lot of blood.

Abortion Statistics | ALL


User Clip: Dr. Anthony Levatino | C-SPAN.org

Personally, I don’t think morality can, nor necessarily should be legislated by the government. I also think it would be better if government would stay out of defining or licensing marriage. I definitely believe in religious freedom or freedom to be non- religious.
Abortion is another matter, though. There are legitimate and necessary laws against murder. I think abortion crosses the line and there is no way to rationalize away the reality that killing a pre-born infant is cruelty and murder.
https://www.all.org/abortion/abortion-statistics

Throughout the pandemic, I've seen you oppose vaccines and other anti-COVID measures. No amount of statistics about death, severe illness, and stress on medical staff that people cited to you made a difference in your position, yet you're now citing abortion statistics and equating it with murder? By that logic, one could just as well argue that refusal to abide by medical precautions during a pandemic was equivalent to murder, but that would be unreasonable because "murder" is a loaded word that implies very specific and premeditated motives.

This is why a lot of people are becoming increasingly opposed to conservative Christianity and in some cases even becoming hostile to conservative Christians. Not all of them believe in imposing their religious beliefs on others via state law, thankfully, but positions like the ones you're espousing here certainly give the anti-religious and anti-theists a lot of ammo. Between the dangerous, inhumane extremism of political Christianity and the overgeneralizations about religious people from anti-theists, actual moderates and compassionate people are left stranded in a sea of theocratic dictatorship and political vitriol, all while watching political elites chip away at their freedoms and basic rights at the cheers of religious fanatics and ideologues.

 

[InChrist]

Google spontaneous abortions. If you want to argue facts of the everyday world, get your facts straight.

Oh, you are referring to miscarriage; the natural loss of an unborn baby as opposed to the deliberate killing of the baby. I am still not sure what you mean to express.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you are referring to miscarriage; the natural loss of an unborn baby as opposed to the deliberate killing of the baby. I am still not sure what you mean to express.

Yes, he was talking about God killing a baby rather than the parents. You need to be consistent.

 

[Polymath257]

Marriage is one of the oldest social institutions there is. It dates back to ancient and probably to prehistoric times. It's found all around the world. It means something.

Yes, it means a socially recognized pair bond. In ancient times, same sex couples were allowed and fairly common. It is only recently, with the rise of 'nuclear marriage' that things narrowed.

That's what the "gay marriage" dispute is all about. A coterie of social activists wants to radically change what the word 'marriage' means. But they aren't satisfied with another phrase like 'civil unions' or whatever it might be, because they want to bathe in the age-old connotations and associations that the word 'marriage' conjures up, even as they try to tear that meaning down.

But it *isn't* a radical change of what the word marriage means traditionally. The only issue is one of breadth of the relationships so recognized.

They are most certainly NOT trying to tear down the institution: they are trying to join in with it. They like the age old connotations of societal approval, special rights, etc.

Yes, I've long advocated that. Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? What business is it of theirs who I share my bed with? I suppose that in earlier centuries it was about laws of inheritance. But today so many children are born out of marriage and the means of determining biological and legal parentage are so developed, that it's no longer necessary to base inheritance and judgments of parental responsibility on children being born within a marriage.

Oh, it is still very much about inheritance and property rights. It is about insurance and survivor benefits. It is about social recognition as a legitimate family. it is about who will be responsible for the children and who will make health care choices.

If anything, the religious aspect of marriage is the trivial side. Maybe it is the relgious institution that needs to change its name?

So perhaps it would be best to get the government out of the marriage business.

But as noted above, marriage still means something in our culture. (If less and less, as the institution is under relentless attack.) It still carries religious and psychological resonance. (In some brands of Christianity, marriage is one of the sacraments.) So let marriage and the rite of marrying people be the province of religious institutions.

Exactly. And adding gay marriage only adds to the connotations and benefits.

Nobody is saying that any church has to recognize any marriage made outside of it. But that is true now. If I get married in one church, another does not have to acknowledge the relationship as valid in their faith.

Some of these will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, just as marriage has been defined for thousands of years.

And the society at large has mostly moved beyond that restricted, non-traditional, meaning.

Others (the Metropolitan Community Church and many of the more "woke" mainline Protestant denominations these days) would be free to marry gay couples if they wish.

And members of the public would be free to define 'marriage' as they see fit and to recognize couples as married or not according to what they conceive marriage to be.

Again, it sounds like the civil institution works as it should and the religious institutions need to use another word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and here is more of a Christian view on abortion:

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, you are referring to miscarriage; the natural loss of an unborn baby as opposed to the deliberate killing of the baby. I am still not sure what you mean to express.

Yes, most fertilized eggs never make it to implantation. Of those that do, most do not make it to term.

Miscarriages are also called...*spontaneous abortions*.

Let's also not forget ectopic pregnancies, which are inevitably fatal for the embryo (they never get to the fetal stage) and can be for the woman.

Pregnancy is a much riskier thing than many people seem to want to acknowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, you are referring to miscarriage; the natural loss of an unborn baby as opposed to the deliberate killing of the baby. I am still not sure what you mean to express.

That this is not true: "... If the developing infant is left to continue in the womb; what happens? It stays alive and continues growing, obviously."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have the right to refuse the vaccine

in many cases you don't have the right to refuse the jab and continue to work

Correct, but you never had the right to any job where you can legally be fired, with or without a vaccine. Nor to enter restaurants that require vaccination, nor airplanes, nor entertainment venues.

One's rights in this matter end with the right to refuse vaccination, a right nobody is denied except perhaps children whose parents hold them down as somebody is inoculating them. For everybody else, no means no.

no right to own unregistered guns, even if the law allowed for that.

the right to defend yourself is one of the most basic human rights.

If you want a gun to defend yourself, it still need to be registered. You have no right to own unregistered guns. You have the freedom to do so if the law permits, a law that can be rescinded, but no right. If the law says so, your gun needs to be registered.

 

[InChrist]

That this is not true: "... If the developing infant is left to continue in the womb; what happens? It stays alive and continues growing, obviously."

Okay, I should have clarified...usually under normal, healthy conditions the developing infant continues to stay alive and grow.

 

[InChrist]

Yes, most fertilized eggs never make it to implantation. Of those that do, most do not make it to term.

Miscarriages are also called...*spontaneous abortions*.

Let's also not forget ectopic pregnancies, which are inevitably fatal for the embryo (they never get to the fetal stage) and can be for the woman.

Pregnancy is a much riskier thing than many people seem to want to acknowledge.

I never said abortive surgery should be prohibited in the case of the woman’s life being in danger, as with ectopic pregnancies.

 

[Riders]

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to take away GLBTQ rights.

 

[InChrist]

Yes, he was talking about God killing a baby rather than the parents. You need to be consistent.

You need to understand there is a difference between a created human being and God, the Creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I should have clarified...usually under normal, healthy conditions the developing infant continues to stay alive and grow.

And what makes you think that a fetus has a right to that environment?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Indeed, I consider these Christian extremists to be anti-Christs because most of their attitudes and behavior is contrary to what Jesus taught. It's an absurdity that they call themselves Christian at all.

Christ is only a gatekeeper to heaven and the one who will smite their enemies at the Apocalypse. Otherwise, they don't much care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to understand there is a difference between a created human being and God, the Creator.

Sorry, but that is a special pleading fallacy. And you would need to prove that humans were "created" for your argument to even begin to have any validity.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You need to understand there is a difference between a created human being and God, the Creator.

Why excuse a deity that murders a person just because he wants to? There are way better gods out there.

 

[InChrist]

It's natural for people to react with anger or become hostile when someone threatens their safety and/or their basic rights. Banning abortion would threaten the health or even the life of many people. Bearing in mind the kind of damage it can cause to many people's lives, I see it as no less harmful than inciting violence or threatening others. Actually, I would say it is a form of threatening others--it threatens their freedom, health, and, in some cases, their lives.

You probably think these reactions are disproportionate or not understandable, which doesn't surprise me considering your stance on abortion. If you believe a fetus should take priority over any concerns a pregnant adult could have about going through pregnancy and labor, of course you would dismiss the "hostile" or "threatening" reactions to a ruling such as this one that, for many people, could very well be life-changing, and in a drastically negative way.



Throughout the pandemic, I've seen you oppose vaccines and other anti-COVID measures. No amount of statistics about death, severe illness, and stress on medical staff that people cited to you made a difference in your position, yet you're now citing abortion statistics and equating it with murder? By that logic, one could just as well argue that refusal to abide by medical precautions during a pandemic was equivalent to murder, but that would be unreasonable because "murder" is a loaded word that implies very specific and premeditated motives.

This is why a lot of people are becoming increasingly opposed to conservative Christianity and in some cases even becoming hostile to conservative Christians. Not all of them believe in imposing their religious beliefs on others via state law, thankfully, but positions like the ones you're espousing here certainly give the anti-religious and anti-theists a lot of ammo. Between the dangerous, inhumane extremism of political Christianity and the overgeneralizations about religious people from anti-theists, actual moderates and compassionate people are left stranded in a sea of theocratic dictatorship and political vitriol, all while watching political elites chip away at their freedoms and basic rights at the cheers of religious fanatics and ideologues.

I am completely opposed to any kind of a theocratic dictatorship or government. As I stated previously, I don’t believe morality can or should be legislated. I fully understand that in some cases where the woman’s life is endangered emergency abortive surgery is necessary. How many abortions are actually done for such reasons, though, rather than for convenience? I’m not saying being pregnant or having an unplanned pregnancy or baby is easy. I am a woman. I’ve experienced pregnancy. I had to deal with what I thought was an unplanned pregnancy at age 18. But there are alternatives to killing the baby. I just don’t think it’s fanatical to choose life over death. It could very well open the door to a life-changing, dramatically wonderful opportunity.

I think what is really happening with all the hostility, violence and obsession with death and destruction in our world today is the intensifying rising spirit of the antichrist before the end of the age. Conservatives, liberals, religious, non-religious...whatever, whoever; the evil is growing and coming from all directions as the enemy of humanity tries to destroy as many as possible.

 

[InChrist]

Why excuse a deity that murders a person just because he wants to? There are way better gods out there.

Do you know for a fact that God the Creator “murders” because He wants to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am completely opposed to any kind of a theocratic dictatorship or government. As I stated previously, I don’t believe morality can or should be legislated. I fully understand that in some cases where the woman’s life is endangered emergency abortive surgery is necessary. How many abortions are actually done for such reasons, though, rather than for convenience? I’m not saying being pregnant or having an unplanned pregnancy or baby is easy. I am a woman. I’ve experienced pregnancy. I had to deal with what I thought was an unplanned pregnancy at age 18. But there are alternatives to killing the baby. I just don’t think it’s fanatical to choose life over death. It could very well open the door to a life-changing, dramatically wonderful opportunity.

I think what is really happening with all the hostility, violence and obsession with death and destruction in our world today is the intensifying rising spirit of the antichrist before the end of the age. Conservatives, liberals, religious, non-religious...whatever, whoever; the evil is growing and coming from all directions as the enemy of humanity tries to destroy as many as possible.

And yet the second bold is morality and you want to legislate based on that, right?

 

[metis]

Go eat some meat and get your strength back.
And no it doesn't cause global warming... good grief that's another thing about the left, they buy the most ridiculous propositions.

From NASA: Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.-- Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)