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.
Why? It’s Christians ego run everything, not Jews.
Because quoting Old Testament verses like that is a slippery slope. You are entering the realm of Jewish law, where many Jewish scholars debate the law in the Talmud with many commentaries.
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/
Why?
Because it’s something that’s easily googled? Because it’s lazy to ask questions like that before trying to find it yourself?
The request seemed genuine. Google also gives a number of conflicting answers from a variety of dubious sources. I’m happy to provide a citation and probably should keep a link to that Dan McClellan video and just post it any time I make the assertion.
What you’re teaching them to do is trust “experts” on the internet to give them unbiased sources. (And we know that there’s no such thing.) You might be an expert, I’ll grant you, but what happens the next time they ask about COVID and the only person who replies sends them a link about bleach light treatments?
There’s nothing wrong with answering questions, but I’d much rather answer the question “Is this link/source legit?” than “What’s the answer?” I think that’s more ethical, and more critical thinking can come into play by explaining why a source is or isn’t good.
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.
I dont think it mentions when life begins
It says the soul enters the body with the first breath.
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.
Removed by mod
I can only explain it quickly: there is no logic or critical thinking behind choices like these.
It’s worse than that. The conservative mind abhors logic. It requires a level of narcissistic flexibility that permits any political opinion that benefits the conservative.
Angry people vote. If you can make people angry by convincing them that your opponent wants to murder babies, that’s good for you because it makes stupid people angry. If you can also convince voters that your opoonents are friendly to murderers who should die, then that’s good for you because it makes stupid people angry.
It’s always easier to convince stupid people that someone else is wrong than it is to convince anyone that you are right.
It’s about control and punishment of women. Plus, churches are often as uncompromising *as the NRA: rape, vulnerable people, incest, etc; abortion is always bad and can’t be tolerated.
How they’re able to justify killing criminals, I don’t know…
“Forgiveness is for chumps”
-our supreme (totally christian) mullahs
Gotta wait until they’re too old to be cold on the battlefield before you execute them.
deleted by creator
Wait why?
Looks like I was wrong, Alabama did away with the Judeg override in 2017, however anyone who’s life sentence was overridden before 2017 Alabama still wants to execute those people
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.
Well to be fair, every religion’s god is the one true God. But yes, the south put too much I to the bible because they don’t know any better. It’s how they were raised. Thank you to those that that had deeper thought and questioned and got out.
Well to be fair, every religion’s god is the one true God.
That’s not even a little bit true. Historically, most religions were polytheistic, and most religions today would count as such by outside observers.
I like how Jesus/Issa sent Thomas to India, so the poor guy gets to Kerala and starts talking about The Son of God and they’re all “oh ok, another one, we’ll add him to the list” and he’s all “no not like that!!”
Islam attempts to play the trump card by claiming that it represents the best and final revelations.
Yeah, Islam is sort of an outlier. Even the Bible has references to other gods.
Yeah sadly they just follow the herd and don’t think for themselves.
Might as well cite Harry Potter. The words from “the” bible have no legal meaning in a secular nation.
Secular nation. Lol
Correct is Correct
The United states is secular in name only at this point
Well, in the radicalized Gilead states, yeah. Many (hopefully most) Americans recognize that freedom of religion requires freedom FROM religion still.
And the percentage of “nones” is growing all the time.
‘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?
Before I formed you should include sperm and eggs right?
Presumably God knows everything before it is formed. Birds, fish, plants…
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.
Public education used to be the bulwark against parents failing to educate their kids. A solid public education system that everyone is required to participate in (with no idiotic parental permission slips for certain topics) is necessary for a country where everyone shares the same reality.
Alabama is becoming a theocratic regime, just like Iran. That’s terrifying.
Removed by mod
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.
Rightly or wrongly, non-voters are irrelevant in a democracy.
They aren’t irrelevant. They can be mobilized, and their turnout made the difference in Georgia and Arizona flipping blue. Some are apathetic, but others would vote if they had transportation, time off work, childcare, were informed about what interests of theirs were at stake
But we will lose Boeing if we do that…hmm. I think I might have found another reason.
“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?
Removed by mod
Monty Python put it best:
I mean… judges cite all kinds of stuff to support their opinions. Maybe they’re an aspiring theocrat, and maybe they were just being lyrical to communicate the depth of the impact of the crime. I definitely think that saying this is going to change the treatment of the practice of IVF in the state is not at all demonstrated.
“This embryo was supposed to be my unborn child, and since you broke the law and destroyed it, I can go after you to pay the price of its destruction” is to me pretty fair. It’s very different from “you had a miscarriage therefore you should go to prison.”
Maybe there’s a bad precedent being set and maybe (okay not really maybe) it’s dangerous to cite scripture in any form from any branch of government. I still don’t think this quite belongs in the “terrifying things” bucket as firmly as do as lot of things the southern states are doing vis-à-vis embryos in their jurisdictions.
