• MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      171
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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/

      • zigmus64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        10 months ago

        Please help me with this one. I’m genuinely interested in understanding this. Got any sources?

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          106
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Mereo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            10 months ago

            If they really want to cite old testament verses, they should also refer to the Talmud.

              • Mereo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

          • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

              • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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.

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          59
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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/

            • Ransom@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              10 months ago

              Because it’s something that’s easily googled? Because it’s lazy to ask questions like that before trying to find it yourself?

              • MagicShel@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • Ransom@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

      • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      We already have a group of six Mullahs whose pronouncements cannot be challenged and who are in their position for life.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      You know, this would be pretty sweet with a Jeebus re-branding.

      The history of the early church evangelizing, in one sentence.

  • Philo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Removed by mod

    • GlitterNinja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I can only explain it quickly: there is no logic or critical thinking behind choices like these.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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…

  • TengoHipo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          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!!”

        • modifier@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Islam attempts to play the trump card by claiming that it represents the best and final revelations.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    10 months ago

    Might as well cite Harry Potter. The words from “the” bible have no legal meaning in a secular nation.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    ‘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?

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    10 months ago

    Time to move to Alabama, freeze a bunch of embryos, and claim a fuck ton of dependents on my taxes.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, I’m not clear on whether it’s the same deduction or not. Either way, it’s surreal that we are actually discussing this as a real life scenario.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Around 36% of voters there went for Biden, and only a 46% turnout. So a lot of people who didn’t vote for Trump.

        • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    Alabama is becoming a theocratic regime, just like Iran. That’s terrifying.

    • Philo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Removed by mod

  • capital@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “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.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    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?