Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Spoiler: warning: irreverent satire on abortion, SFW

Amoeba-Americans already have all the same rights as other Americans. Note that rights and freedoms are different, something the anti-vaxxers had problems with when they claimed that their rights were being stolen from them, when the only right they had there was the right to refuse vaccination, which was respected. They never had a right to work or dine where they can be legally be discriminated against.

Regarding guaranteed rights, Amoeba-Americans have the same rights as their terrestrial, air-breathing counterparts. First Amendment protections. The government cannot censor anything they might have to say, nor prevent them from assembling, nor worshiping the God of their choice. Their Second Amendment rights are the same as those of babies. Fourth Amendment, too. If indicted, they're entitled to council, a speedy trial, the right to address their accusers, etc.. Nowhere in any of those amendments does it say that a clump of cells can be treated any differently than babies, children, or older Tetrapod-Americans.

 

[InChrist]

When that pre-born is not even sentient the charge of cruelty to it is nonsensical, and it can only be considered murder if you consider it to be a living person from the moment of conception.

Do you advocate not switching off the life-support systems of the clinically brain dead even though they can be kept "living" indefinitely?

If you do advocate that you are irrationally attached to living cells and since you kill off a certain number of cells every time you scratch your nose or remove a tumour or any other number of activities you are a murderer by the definition of killing non-sentient life.

If you dont advocate that then it is inconsistent to consider the destruction of pre-sentient life as being any more "murder" than the destruction of post sentient life.

In my opinion.

For one thing who are you or any of us to rightly determine when an unborn infant is sentient? If the developing infant is left to continue in the womb; what happens? It stays alive and continues growing, obviously. Just as obvious is that abortion kills life. There is no getting around that fact.
Studies have shown pre- born infants can sense light, heat sounds, voices and music. They feel pain between 5-6 months.

Unborn babies recoil from pain at 5 - 6 months - ClinicQuotes


How many abortions take place at that stage or after?

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRCroccSjXWR9HVr_ooA3ErEAR0SifdwY

As said previously, I don’t think the brutality of abortion at any stage or that it is murder can be rationalized away when one is aware of what takes place...


...Suction Abortion

After dilation of the cervix, a suction curette (a tube with a serrated tip) is inserted into the uterus. The strong suction (29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner) tears the baby’s body apart and sucks it through the hose into a container. This is the most common method of surgical abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Dilation & Curettage (D&C)

Used through the 12th week. After dilation of the cervix, a curette (a sharp, looped knife) is inserted into the uterus. The baby’s body is cut into pieces and extracted, often by suction. The uterine wall is then scraped to remove the placenta and confirm that the uterus is empty.


Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

Committed up to 18 weeks. Forceps are inserted into the uterus, grabbing and twisting the baby’s body to dismember him/her. If the head is too large, it must be crushed in order to remove it. It is arguably the most barbaric of today's commonly used abortion procedures.

https://studentsforlife.org/learn/abortion-procedures/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For one thing who are you or any of us to rightly determine when an unborn infant is sentient? If the developing infant is left to continue in the womb; what happens? It stays alive and continues growing, obviously. Just as obvious is that abortion kills life. There is no getting around that fact.
...

That is not so of this world. Start again.

 

[InChrist]

That is not so of this world. Start again.

What do you mean?

 

[Sheldon]

Absolutely not.

it's clear when you talk of freedom, you really mean your freedom. as it is also clear you're happy to deny or remove freedom from others, by forcing your views on them, even though they are not doing the same to you.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't have one.

Don't like abortions? Then don't have one.

Don't like gambling? Then don't gamble.

Don't like cannabis? Then don't use it.

It appears you are not prepared to show others the same courtesy by reciprocating, and allowing them to be free to choose.

 

[Sheldon]

Thabks for proving my in point. You want something that historically doesn't exist, to change marriage into a same sex relationship.

So what? Things change, words change, this is in the nature of things. You want the freedom to marry for yourself, but then want to deny it to others?

 

[Sheldon]

You can get the same from civil unions.

Then why have them, just let everyone be free to marry who they want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, this is only western culture but you seem not to know your history:
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage#:~:text=The first recorded evidence of,Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans.

Very nice, but let's see what a Christian expert on marriage says:

 

[Sheldon]

Not mowing your yard and eating steaks doesn't hurt you or society. A casino and hookers in the neighborhood guarantees crime and corruption.

Not mowing your lawn might not directly harm others, eating steak - beef will indirectly exacerbate global warming, by the release of greenhouse gases from cattle, but simply reducing the amount of red meet we eat will help this. A casino does not guarantee crime, and if you legalised prostitution it would likely reduce crime, and reduce exploitation by organised criminals. Nor do I agree it would guarantee corruption, quite the opposite, keeping prostitution in the hands of criminals and criminal gangs seems far more likely to result in corruption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

Interesting to hear you say this, since this is precisely what I think you're doing.

As a society, we did a bad job for a long time of recognizing the love and commitment in same-sex relationships, but now that we do, people like you are trying to make marriage nothing more than a breeding arrangement instead of an institution founded on love and commitment.

You are trying to cheapen the institution of marriage.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean?

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not mowing your lawn might not directly harm others, eating steak - beef will indirectly exacerbate global warming, by the release of greenhouse gases from cattle, but simply reducing the amount of red meet we eat will help this. A casino does not guarantee crime, and if you legalised prostitution it would likely reduce crime, and reduce exploitation by organised criminals. Nor do I agree it would guarantee corruption, quite the opposite, keeping prostitution in the hands of criminals and criminal gangs seems far more likely to result in corruption.

When it comes to prostitution I have seen various articles and videos about how decriminalization may be the best process. Legalized prostitution will not get rid of pimps and other criminals. Go to Nevada where prostitution is legalized and very expensive. Needy women will still be drawn to illegal prostitution and there will also be pimps that use and abuse them. The gals will still not be able to go to the police. I am pretty sure that New Zealand has taken the decriminalization route and it has worked rather well there.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

I doubt it predates homosexuality.

That's what the "gay marriage" dispute is all about. A coterie of social activists wants to radically change what the word 'marriage' means.

Nonsense, your marriage can mean what it always has to you, but now it includes others who have too long and without reason been denied the right.

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.

Who are you to tell anyone they cannot marry who they love, and call it marriage?

Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? What business is it of theirs who I share my bed with?

What business is it of yours who others marry? This is the crux of what the debate is about, people trying to tell others what they can and cannot do.

If you don't like gay marriages, then don't have one.

 

[Sheldon]

When it comes to prostitution I have seen various articles and videos about how decriminalization may be the best process. Legalized prostitution will not get rid of pimps and other criminals. Go to Nevada where prostitution is legalized and very expensive. Needy women will still be drawn to illegal prostitution and there will also be pimps that use and abuse them. The gals will still not be able to go to the police. I am pretty sure that New Zealand has taken the decriminalization route and it has worked rather well there.

I'm inclined to agree, there is no single solution panacea, but legalisation seems to make the most sense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not mowing your lawn might not directly harm others, eating steak - beef will indirectly exacerbate global warming, by the release of greenhouse gases from cattle, but simply reducing the amount of red meet we eat will help this. A casino does not guarantee crime, and if you legalised prostitution it would likely reduce crime, and reduce exploitation by organised criminals. Nor do I agree it would guarantee corruption, quite the opposite, keeping prostitution in the hands of criminals and criminal gangs seems far more likely to result in corruption.

You post a lot of hogwash.
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.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Two poor examples. You have the right to refuse the vaccine, but no right to own unregistered guns, even if the law allowed for that.

Wrong...in many cases you don't have the right to refuse the jab and continue to work. And the right to defend yourself is one of the most basic human rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many abortions take place at that stage or after?

If you feel so strongly about late term abortions, why are you trying to encourage as many as possible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Are you trying to imply that we have a right to employment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You post a lot of hogwash.
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.

Just because someone does not understand the sciences does not mean that conclusions are ridiculous. We could discuss AGW in another thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong...in many cases you don't have the right to refuse the jab and continue to work. And the right to defend yourself is one of the most basic human rights.

It depends upon the job. An employer almost always has the right to make such demands. Try getting a job in a nursing home and totally avoiding vaccinations. They can fire someone for that. If one has a job where one never comes into contact with anyone else an employer may not be able to sue for resisting the jab, but I do not think that occurs anywhere else. In case you forgot the Supreme Court case was about ordering businesses to demand that people get vaccinated. They cannot be forced to do that.