Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 07, 2022

In early December 2021, seven Muslim American organisations, including HEART, published a letter arguing that Muslims must oppose the abortion ban. "By defining life as beginning at conception, this law adopts the religious belief of some Christians who believe that all abortion is immoral. But not all American Christians, nor Americans of other religions, share this belief. In other words, by picking one religious belief and enshrining it into law, Mississippi is infringing on constitutional protections for American religious diversity."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"In our view, Mississippi's law not only compromises the Constitution's protection of religious diversity among Americans, but also threatens an Islamic principle of honoring religious diversity. That same principle is consistent with the idea that a secular state should resist enacting laws based solely on the beliefs of one religion. We should applaud, not condemn, Muslims who are fighting against that impulse. Today the crusade to enshrine religion into state law is being fought over abortion rights, tomorrow it will be something else."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The 1st Amendment may be the most expedient way to currently fight against any and all draconian state abortion restrictions. There is no way to separate the anti-abortionists' fervor in favor of forced birth from their loudly expressed and stated religious belief that abortion is akin to murder when there are centuries of religious teachings and texts denoting that in many faiths, in vitro "life" does not begin until a point 10 or more weeks after conception.

Anti abortion laws will usurp many people of faith from exercising what their own religion allows them within its stated practices.

"I, and many women of religious minorities who don't happen to agree with the restrictive Christian view that life begins at conception, are concerned that the Christian Right is trying to use the legislative power of democracy to impose their view of abortion on everyone else," Asifa Quraishi-Landes, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specialises in comparative Islamic and US constitutional law, told Al Jazeera in an email.

Quraishi-Landes also stressed that the rules of Islamic jurisprudence are not the only thing to consider in a Sharia worldview. There is also what is known as siyasa - the law of the ruler or state - which is based not on scriptural interpretation, but rather on "maslaha amma" - the public good.

"A state law banning abortion does not serve the general public good because it could cause serious harm to a lot of people (e.g. women dying from botched self-abortions)," she said. "Muslims should not support it. To do so would be to support the legislation of one's individual religious views on others, and I believe that Muslim history shows that Muslims are better than that."

www.aljazeera.com

The pro Roe advocates need to start speaking of any abortion restrictions as coming from Christians forcing their religious beliefs onto everyone else. They openly admit it, and the most vocal anti abortion groups are directly led by or financially tied to Christian faiths and organizations. Either the 1st Amendment allows everyone to hold their own closely held religious beliefs as sacrosanctly as Christians, then the Amendment's religious protections are not what they're professed to be.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-07 10:13 AM | Reply

"Muslim" is not written into the Constitution.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-07 10:54 AM | Reply

In some cultures, kidnapping is considered a part of their courting rituals. So, following the same logic, laws against kidnapping must also be unconstitutional?

#3 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 06:56 PM | Reply

So, following the same logic, laws against kidnapping must also be unconstitutional?

Are those cultures governed by the Constitution?

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-05-07 07:14 PM | Reply

"So, following the same logic"

You made two changes which affect the logic.

You replaced religion with culture.
You replaced fetus with person.

You made other changes, but those are enough to show you're not here to discuss the issues at hand.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-07 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's often a huge overlap between cultural and religious beliefs, to the point where it's impossible to separate the two.

#6 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 07:32 PM | Reply

There's practically no overlap between a fetus and a person. It's very easy to separate the two.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-07 08:33 PM | Reply

There's practically no overlap between a fetus and a person. It's very easy to separate the two.

#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY A

Even easier with the morning after pill

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-07 10:36 PM | Reply

Glad some people can finally acknowledge that a fetus is a completely separate entity and not just another part of the pregnant person's body. Progress, I guess, even though the implications of the scientific concepts are still beyond your levels.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 08:52 AM | Reply

#9

A zygote is not a fetus moron. Learn the difference.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 08:58 AM | Reply

I was specifically responding to (a statement about) a fetus moron.

It becomes a fetus moron at about eight weeks.

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 09:31 AM | Reply

It becomes a fetus moron at about eight weeks.

#11 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

"About"?

When are you sure?

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-08 09:39 AM | Reply

OK---I'm confused---Are we talking about a "fetus" or a "fetus moron"?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-08 09:40 AM | Reply

It becomes a fetus moron at about eight weeks.

I think Sentinel was an exception. He was a fetus moron from the moment of conception.

The point that flew over his head is that Muslims' religious beliefs dictate that the zygote isn't a person until ensoulment - around 10-12 weeks; or most of the time BEFORE the zygote is medically considered a fetus.

So his aside was imbecilic and a WOB. Sorta like him.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 09:47 AM | Reply

"I think Sentinel was an exception. He was a fetus moron from the moment of conception."

These lame and unprovoked ad hominem huffs show how weak and insecure you are in your position.

"The point that flew over his head is that Muslims' religious beliefs dictate that the zygote isn't a person until ensoulment - around 10-12 weeks; or most of the time BEFORE the zygote is medically considered a fetus."

The point obviously went over your head that Muslims' (or any other religious group's) supposed religious beliefs do not trump facts based on modern scientific knowledge. But this on par with methods I've seen from you on here in the past - you want to fight sexism with sexism, fight racism with racism, fight stupidity and ignorance with even more stupidity and ignorance.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 01:17 PM | Reply

The point obviously went over your head that Muslims' (or any other religious group's) supposed religious beliefs do not trump facts based on modern scientific knowledge.

What scientific knowledge is that?

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 01:25 PM | Reply

There is no scientific consensus that the moment a zygote is fertilized its recognized as an independent life.

That is a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.

Any banning of abortion is based on religion, not science. I'm fighting your ignorance with my understanding of simple reality.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

www.msn.com

Apparently Jewish rights as well

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"There is no scientific consensus that the moment a zygote is fertilized its recognized as an independent life."

Wrong. It's basic biology, and those of you claiming otherwise are taking an anti-science stance. You're so desperate to dehumanize a subset of the human race that you're willing to appeal to religious doctrines from a time before microscopes existed. You've got no leg to stand on. You're really no better than Alito (who I've never really cared for as a judge).

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 01:57 PM | Reply

There is no scientific consensus that the moment a zygote is fertilized its recognized as an independent life."
Wrong. It's basic biology, and those of you claiming otherwise are taking an anti-science stance. You're so desperate to dehumanize a subset of the human race that you're willing to appeal to religious doctrines from a time before microscopes existed. You've got no leg to stand on. You're really no better than Alito (who I've never really cared for as a judge).

#19 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You didn't answer the question.

"...facts based on modern scientific knowledge.
What scientific knowledge is that?"

#16 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Scientific knowledge as it relates to what?
Life? Independent? Human life? Person?

You see, one problem, as I see it, is you are incapable of using precise language. That is usually a result of cognitive dissonance compounded by ignorance. IOW you do not have the words to express the confusion your brain is experiencing. So, you rely on simplistic concepts.

Sad, really

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 02:13 PM | Reply

#19

You understand what is being said. Why do you insist upon being obtuse?

The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected by legislation. The practice of law is irrevocably intertwined with that of ethical conduct; and the time at which a human life is considered a person has implications that extend to health care, legislation on abortion, and autonomy of individuals.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is the point, it's always been the point and you know it's the point.

The legal designation of when cells become humans recognized with rights protected by the law does not have a scientific consensus because it's not a scientific question, it's a humanist question mainly argued under the auspices of religious belief due to the common sense reality that a clump of in vitro cells should not be treated as a legal equal to an autonomous human being.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 02:17 PM | Reply

#19
You understand what is being said. Why do you insist upon being obtuse?

The inescapable conclusion is, at a minimum, he values the existence of a few unwanted cells over women.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 02:28 PM | Reply

No faith is monolithic on the abortion issue. Yet many followers of faiths that don't prohibit abortion are aghast that a view held by a minority of Americans could supersede their individual rights and religious beliefs.

In Judaism, for example, many authorities say abortion is permitted or even required in cases where the woman's life is in danger.

"This ruling would be outlawing abortion in cases when our religion would permit us," said Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, scholar in residence at the National Council of Jewish Women, "and it is basing its concepts of when life begins on someone else's philosophy or theology."

In Islam, similarly, there is room for "all aspects of reproductive choice from family planning to abortion," said Nadiah Mohajir, co-founder of Heart Women and Girls, a Chicago nonprofit that works with Muslim communities on reproductive rights and other gender issues.

"One particular political agenda is infringing on my right and my religious and personal freedom," she said.

Donna Nicolino, a student at Fire Lotus Temple, a Zen Buddhist center in Brooklyn, said her faith calls on followers to show compassion to others. Restricting or banning abortion fails to consider why women have abortions and would hurt the poor and marginalized the most, she said.

"If we truly value life as a culture," Nicolino said, "we would take steps like guaranteeing maternal health care, health care for children, decent housing for pregnant women."

Sikhism prohibits sex-selective killings " female infanticide " but is more nuanced when it comes to abortion and favors compassion and personal choice, said Harinder Singh, senior fellow of research and policy at Sikhri, a New Jersey-based nonprofit that creates educational resources about the faith.

www.huffpost.com

This is where we're headed. The path forward couldn't be clearer.

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 02:42 PM | Reply

"Many religions do not condemn child brides, in fact there's a long tradition of them in many religions; therefore, any laws against child brides are a violation of 1st Amendment rights."

That's the essence of your argument.

#24 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 03:07 PM | Reply

"The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected by legislation."

My point has always been that the unborn are individual humans, regardless of whether they're legally "recognized" as people, persons, or being with rights. Just like slaves, women, children, disabled and poor people throughout history.

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 03:14 PM | Reply

#24

God you're a moron. Banning abortion is imposing the religious beliefs of those advocating it. Other religions do not adhere to those beliefs. The 1st Amendment states that people are free to unrestrained practice of their religious beliefs and the RFRA prohibits government from burdening a person's exercise of their religious beliefs.

Government cannot be allowed to enshrine in law one religion's beliefs to the detriment of others as it regards the exact same issue. You want to continue to ignore that any ban of abortion is based on religious belief when those proposing said legislation are perfectly clear that their religious beliefs compels them to do just that. They're not making a science argument, they're making a religious argument.

Bishop Garland R. Hunt Sr., senior pastor of The Father's House, a nondenominational, predominantly African American church in Peachtree Corners, Georgia, agreed.

"This is the result of ongoing, necessary prayer since 1973," Hunt said. "As a Christian, I believe that God is the one that gives life - not politicians or justices. I certainly want to see more babies protected in the womb."

www.huffpost.com

Do you see a scientific argument anywhere in those words?

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 03:18 PM | Reply

My point has always been that the unborn are individual humans, regardless of whether they're legally "recognized" as people, persons, or being with rights.

And again, you're asked to quantify at what point the rights of the unborn become ascendent to the right's of its host? This is the question that actual laws must answer, not the philosophical conundrum of when does life begin.

Does the mother's right to life supercede the right's of the life growing inside her? At what point, and to what degree? Must she sacrifice her health for that of the nascent life when science tells us more than 20% of zygotes/fetuses are miscarried naturally anyway?

How do you balance all these competing interests without compromising some for others? And therein lies the answer. The mother's rights have to be ascendant because not only her life might be at risk, the lives of her birthed children, husband, and any others dependant upon her have to be considered too. Especially since her body contains more potential future children that would never see life if she died for the sake of any particular unborn zygote(s).

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 03:26 PM | Reply

"God you're a moron."

That's the essence of your argument.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 03:37 PM | Reply

"My point has always been that the unborn are individual humans, regardless of whether they're legally "recognized" as people, persons, or being with rights."

"Individual" is a nonsense claim for a life that must remain physically attached to its host to survive, and can only survive inside its host.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 03:41 PM | Reply

My point has always been that the unborn are individual humans, regardless of whether they're legally "recognized" as people, persons, or being with rights. Just like slaves, women, children, disabled and poor people throughout history.

#25 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2

So it's NOT scientific knowledge after all it's your feelings
Well ---- your feelings

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 04:01 PM | Reply

hat's the essence of your argument.

#24 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Your argument is simply a few cells have more worth than a woman

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 04:02 PM | Reply

"God you're a moron."

That's the essence of your argument.

#28 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Here have a truth hurts donut

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 04:04 PM | Reply

Little pp has wound himself up into an emotional donut. He knows I'm spot on when I point out the flaw in his argument implies he doesn't think slaves, women, children, disabled and poor people throughout history were actual human beings before they were legally recognized as such.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 04:17 PM | Reply

#30

Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a scientific concept.

Sci Fi has floated the concept of personhood to sophisticated AI. It was broached on 2001 A Space Odyssey for example.

#34 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 04:32 PM | Reply

"Especially since her body contains more potential future children that would never see life if she died for the sake of any particular unborn zygote(s)."

You have reminded me of a pet peeve I have with regard to the abortion debate. When I was 7 or 8, my mother gave birth to a stillborn baby. Years later I asked her how she felt about that dead baby. Did she still grieve for her? My mother said, "No, if that baby had lived, we wouldn't have Susie [fake name for my sister who was born when I was 9]." I have a friend who had two abortions when she was young and who then went on to have two children she gave birth to and raised. This notion that there have been 62 million abortions since Roe was passed means that 62 million children are now missing and can never be replaced is based on faulty reasoning. I believe there are many people alive today that wouldn't be here if those 62 million children had been carried to term. I don't think it is a one to one ratio, but I am certain there are millions of women who went on to have children they never would have had if they had not had an abortion at some point in their lives.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-05-08 04:38 PM | Reply

Little pp has wound himself up into an emotional donut. He knows I'm spot on when I point out the flaw in his argument implies he doesn't think slaves, women, children, disabled and poor people throughout history were actual human beings before they were legally recognized as such.

#33 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

SSentinel hates women and hates being called out on it. Get some therapy and stop going to MRA websites.

Truth Hurts

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 05:34 PM | Reply

Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a scientific concept.
Sci Fi has floated the concept of personhood to sophisticated AI. It was broached on 2001 A Space Odyssey for example.

#34 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Captain Obvious chimes in.

Thanks for the input, liar.

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 05:35 PM | Reply

my mother gave birth to a stillborn baby.

Sorry to hear, my understanding this sort of thing, and miscarriages occurring can ruin marriages.
www.rwjf.org

I believe there are many people alive today that wouldn't be here if those 62 million children had been carried to term.

?? Can you expand on that? You seem to be implying people are using abortions as birth control, its like saying we killed 62Million to make 63+Million? Not sure this is making your case.

#38 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-08 05:36 PM | Reply

pp-pravdapain can't even string together a coherent argument and has to resort to strawman projection, like all the other prussian trolls.

#39 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 05:41 PM | Reply

Forcing a woman to give birth is similar to forcing people to donate organs.

A woman has the right to take drugs that reduce her chance of death, even if the drug will kill a zygote.
A woman has the right to end an umbilical cord connection to her uterus. After that, there is no fetal life to argue about.

#40 | Posted by bored at 2022-05-08 05:46 PM | Reply

pp-pravdapain can't even string together a coherent argument and has to resort to strawman projection, like all the other prussian trolls.

#39 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

SSentinel, you haven't made a coherent argument throughout. Well, that and your adamant MRA determination that men shouldn't have to pay. It all comes down to your feelings. Well, ---- your feelings, loser

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 05:57 PM | Reply

Well you know I said go forth and multiply, form nations and be stewards of the land

But you ------ it all up.

Don't call me, I'll call you

GOD

#42 | Posted by bruceaz at 2022-05-08 06:01 PM | Reply

facts based on modern scientific knowledge

still waiting for your facts based on modern scientific knowledge.

oh, and I missed this nugget you posted "You're so desperate to dehumanize a subset of the human race that you're willing to appeal to religious doctrines from a time before microscopes existed."

leaving aside SSentinel criticizing anyone for dehumanizing a subset of people, do you not realize that overturning the Freedom to Choose will do just that? Of course, that subset are the women that you evidently hate, so there is that. You of course are too ignorant to realize that the justification for humanizing fetus' is due to ancient Christian writings.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 06:01 PM | Reply

If you truly believe in the so-called 'Freedom to Choose', why can't you defend it without being anti-science? Acknowledge that you're extinguishing a human being's life, and justify it. Or don't you believe you can?

#44 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 06:17 PM | Reply

do you not realize that overturning the Freedom to Choose will do just that?

I don't believe it dehumanizes, it certainly makes things difficult, similar to an aging parent; you have to do things you otherwise would not like to do.

You of course are too ignorant to realize that the justification for humanizing fetus' is due to ancient Christian writings.

Its got nothing to do with that, in fact its been stated "historically" it wasn't a human until out of the womb. But we know once its past the Zygote stage and attached to the uterine walls it has a high probability of being born. The DNA is from the mother and father, and it is a separate life existing, and growing to eventually be its own agent, no different than a child before its on its own.

Protecting this life is progress. There is plenty of time for the mother and father to "stop" the attachment, there plenty of technology to "abort" before this time.

Of course, that subset are the women that you evidently hate, so there is that.

More conjecture to your eroding and losing argument.

Forcing a woman to give birth is similar to forcing people to donate organs.

No it isn't. Its simply an absurd comparison.

A woman has the right to take drugs that reduce her chance of death, even if the drug will kill a zygote.

No ----.

A woman has the right to end an umbilical cord connection to her uterus. After that, there is no fetal life to argue about.

Unfortunately she loses some rights, so others may have theirs. She chose a path ... What you describe is barbarism ...

We should progress to be more.

#45 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-08 06:23 PM | Reply

Again, I ask, what scientific knowledge? What specifically are you applying that to? Life? independence? Personhood?

You do realize that those are legalistic definitions not scientific ones, right?

I can easily "justify" my position legalistically, scientifically and morally. Can you?

All of the considered actions happen inside of a woman's body. therefore, her opinion should be held as first and most critical consideration. Period Full Stop.

Specifically, I believe that it is the woman's Freedom to Choose what she does with her body.

I believe that that Freedom includes aborting an unwanted fetus/zygote/fertilized egg.

I am open to limiting that Freedom for a few very specific circumstances, but absolutely believe that the woman's health and life come first, thus a woman should be able to choose abortion up to the minute of delivery if that involves saving her life.

I believe that a woman can abort an unviable fetus up until the moment of delivery. That is HER choice to make.

See, all the science is on MY side. Pregnancy, within a woman's body-check. Unviability-check. Life of the mother-check.

Where YOUR argument falters is you instill feelings into the debate. Your FEELINGS that a fetus/zygote/fertilized egg has value separate and/or more than the mother's. That is not based on science. When "life" begins is a matter of debate, so imo should be left to the person where the zygote/fetus/fertilized egg resides-the mother.

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 06:30 PM | Reply

Again, Alito's decision is not science based it is opinion based, which in abortion opponents case comes from a belief in sanctity of life, which nearly entirely comes from a religious perspective.

You see, when "life" begins is a value judgement. There is no science which says "life" starts at this moment. Because there is no hard and fast rule for what "life" is.

Thus, while I acknowledge stages of human development exist, fertilized egg, zygote, fetus etc, I reject that any of these stages constitute "life" deserving of the same protections as a living human. The only judgement that should matter is the person carrying that building block for a human.

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#47 ... Alito's decision is not science based it is opinion based ...

Worth repeating.

But Republicans have shown time and time again, that they only care about their opinions, even when those opinions are based in an alternative universe.

#48 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 06:46 PM | Reply

Worth a view, imo...

Roe v. Wade Cold Open - SNL
www.youtube.com

...After Justice Samuel Alito's leaked draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, a flashback to 13th century England shows the exact moment three men (Benedict Cumberbatch, Andrew Dismukes, James Austin Johnson) vote to outlaw abortion....

... and, fwiw, Justice Alito actually did cite a document from the era spoofed in the skit.


And then there's this...

Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape
www.propublica.org

...Justice Alito's leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can't be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as "witches," and whose misogyny stood out even in his time. ...

#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're still not getting it. Or you're play acting like Tyler Durden. For many centuries, even millennia, young born children were not considered people. Parents could kill, abandon, or even sell them. That had no bearing on the fact that those children were human beings, as a matter of biological fact. If you can't even acknowledge this fact, then there's no point in even discussing the next step about whether these beings deserve any sort of social or legal recognition or protection.

#50 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 06:57 PM | Reply

"...we know once its past the Zygote stage and attached to the uterine walls it has a high probability of being born."

That's not where Alito draws the line.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-08 07:09 PM | Reply

"Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape"

As has been said many times before about Republicans--the cruelty is the point:

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in a draft opinion obtained and published this week by Politico, detailed his justifications for overturning Roe v. Wade, he invoked a surprising name given the case's subject. In writing about abortion, a matter inextricably tied to a woman's control over her body, Alito chose to quote from Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist whose writings and reasonings have caused enduring damage to women for hundreds of years.

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-05-08 07:17 PM | Reply

@#50 ... If you can't even acknowledge this fact ...

When your comment, in a shotgun approach, tries to ascribe opinions to unspecified people, all your comment does is diminish the credibility of the alias that posted it.

So, if your alias wants to make such a sweeping gainsay against what someone has posted, maybe note the comment your are replying to.


#53 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 07:18 PM | Reply

"For many centuries, even millennia, young born children were not considered people."

If they weren't considered people, then what were they considered?
???

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 07:18 PM | Reply

@#52 ... As has been said many times before about Republicans--the cruelty is the point: ...

Thanks for that follow-up.

I've been remiss in my participation here this past week. My bank is closing the branch I use, so I have been moving my accounts to another bank. That's kept me elsewise busy.

So I may have missed many comments.

thx again.

#55 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 07:23 PM | Reply

"young born children were not considered people."

Considered by whom?
Their mothers and fathers? The King? A slave owner? A Rabbi?

You're just doing a Trump thing: "Lots of people are saying children were not considered people!"

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 07:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unfortunately she loses some rights, so others may have theirs. She chose a path ... What you describe is barbarism ...

We should progress to be more.
#45 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Well at least you acknowledge that a fetus now has rights

The next logical and mandatory response is that every miscarriage be investigated as a possible homicide

Say hello to the vagina police

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 08:07 PM | Reply

You're still not getting it. Or you're play acting like Tyler Durden. For many centuries, even millennia, young born children were not considered people. Parents could kill, abandon, or even sell them. That had no bearing on the fact that those children were human beings, as a matter of biological fact. If you can't even acknowledge this fact, then there's no point in even discussing the next step about whether these beings deserve any sort of social or legal recognition or protection.

#50 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Now you are just babbling
As a result of your inability to defend your position
Because your position is based on your feelings
You feel a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus should be sacred so you argue your position
Alito and you create rights for a bunch of cells at the expense of a woman
Congrats you are on the side of witch burning

#58 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 08:11 PM | Reply

Republicans are beneath contempt. I grow daily frustrated that a country that does not represent my values. Radical minorities dictate policies that infringe on everyone. They refuse or deny policies that are wildly popular with the people. They refuse to govern. They refuse to compromise. They cheat. They elect a conman traitor. The legal system is unwilling or unable to hold republican traitors accountable. I am sick of these regressive holier than thou asshats who thrive on cruelty of those without power. Their entire value system disgusts me. They base their lives on a fricking book written in the bronze age, like it is infallible. Their ignorance, malice, selfishness, hypocrisy, patronizing -------- simply nauseates me.

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 08:18 PM | Reply

@#58 ... You feel a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus should be sacred ...

A religious argument?

After leak, religious rift over legal abortion on display
drudge.com


#60 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 08:20 PM | Reply

I am so ------- tired of having god shoved into my face. I really am. I am tired of everyone starting with the assumption that believing in a fantasy or a 2000 year old book is somehow reasonable. The hubris of that perception of reality is vile. Take your prayers and your god and shove them up your ass. I have zero interest in them. And daily I have to deal with people on their level. that god or the bible are somehow justifications for actions or laws or anything. Shut the ---- up with that noise. I am tired of it. I am tired of dealing with irrational people. When faith is the center of your existence you have surrendered your attachment to the world around you. And we are expected to treat you like that is reasonable. When people talk about faith or god or whatever moving them, I look at them like they are literally insane. And that pervades every ------- aspect of life. ---- off with your nonsense. It is bad enough when prayers are the response to avoidable tragedy like gun violence but now they are being used to justify destroying society as we know it. ---- off with that ---- you delusional ----s.

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 08:29 PM | Reply

"You feel a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus should be sacred so you argue your position
Alito and you create rights for a bunch of cells at the expense of a woman"

Yawn... Never said anything like that. And you know it. You're just having a bit of fun, winding yourself up, tilting at windmills and scarecrows. Knock yourself out.

#62 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-08 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You feel a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus should be sacred so you argue your position
Alito and you create rights for a bunch of cells at the expense of a woman

Expense? Sacred? Bunch of Cells??

What an idiot, can't even articulate the opposition position.

#63 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-08 08:40 PM | Reply

"What an idiot, can't even articulate the opposition position."

The opposition has a position? Do tell.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 08:42 PM | Reply

Are you part of the opposition, or are you just speaking for them?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 08:43 PM | Reply

Unfortunately she loses some rights, so others may have theirs.
#45 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

What rights does she lose?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 08:49 PM | Reply

You feel a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus should be sacred so you argue your position
Alito and you create rights for a bunch of cells at the expense of a woman
Expense? Sacred? Bunch of Cells??
What an idiot, can't even articulate the opposition position.

#63 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Actually, the "opposition" position would be that a woman has an inherent right to bodily autonomy and has a right to privacy and the inherent Freedom to Choose what she does with her own body.

Scum like you hate women so don't think women should have that right.

Truth Hurts Donut

#67 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 08:53 PM | Reply

Truth,

"I am so ------- tired of having god shoved into my face."

Suck it up.

It's ain't all about you.

Snowflakes.

#68 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 08:57 PM | Reply

I'd tell you to take your G-d and shove Him, but I'm pretty sure you already do.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 08:59 PM | Reply

Truth,

"I am so ------- tired of having god shoved into my face."

Suck it up.

It's ain't all about you.

Snowflakes.

#68 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-08 08:57 PM | FLAG:

Nope I'm past the age of child bearing
But I do have a daughter and it disgusts me religious people like you are using delusions to take her bodily autonomy from her

So iow ---- off with your psychotic ----

#70 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:00 PM | Reply

She would have to prove the ban is religion based.

If it is overturned I would dare say there will be reasons other than religion.

#71 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 09:00 PM | Reply

According to Democrats, bans against ---------- violate Muslims' right to find love where they may.

#72 | Posted by LEGALLYDORKY at 2022-05-08 09:07 PM | Reply

If it is overturned I would dare say there will be reasons other than religion.
#71 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Can you enumerate them? Without reference to a value judgement on a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus?

#73 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:07 PM | Reply

Truth,
"I am so ------- tired of having god shoved into my face."
Suck it up.
It's ain't all about you.
Snowflakes.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-08 08:57 PM | REPLY

Oh just STFU already. You prove time and time again that you don't care about cis gender women. You just use them to bash Trans women/girls. You don't believe that women have bodily autonomy do you?? You are no Christian. Christ never considered women as chattel.

#74 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 09:08 PM | Reply

According to Democrats, bans against ---------- violate Muslims' right to find love where they may.

#72 | POSTED BY LEGALLYDORKY AT 2022-05-08 09:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

How to say your dog refuses to have sex with you without saying it.

#75 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:08 PM | Reply

"She would have to prove the ban is religion based."

Did Hobby Lobby have to prove Obamacare was religious based?

Get outta here with your nonsense. You're so dumb you can't even tell you're lying. Or that you're being lied to.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So iow ---- off with your psychotic ----

#70 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-05-08 09:00 PM |

The loonies want to keep talking about a "zygotes" but that leaves more problems.

Problems like the New York abortion law that was updated back in 2019. It gives mothers the right to choose right up to the beginning of the third trimester. Beyond that, if the child is considered "invalid" or puts the mother's life in danger, there's not anything keeping it bound to the first two trimesters if you read how it's written.

"A bill signed into law in early 2019 adds additional protections for abortion access, such as allowing certain medical professionals who aren't doctors to perform the procedure and allowing abortions past 24 weeks if the fetus isn't viable or to protect the mother's health (before the change in the law, this was limited to protecting the mother's life)"

Here's where people run into trouble.

"Penalty for Unlawful Abortion:
New York removed abortion from its Penal Code. No one can be held criminally liable for aborting a fetus, even after the 24th week of pregnancy.

Penal Code Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 were all repealed."

Because this is also in there.

"Physician Licensing Requirements:
Any health care practitioner that is licensed or authorized under Title Eight of the Education Law (Section 6500, et seq.) may perform an abortion, if it is within the scope of their practice. In addition to M.D.s, this could also include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives"

Even a PA and a midwife can choose to perform the abortion after the second trimester with no legal issues to be bothered with.

www.findlaw.com

#77 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-08 09:17 PM | Reply

Bill,

The law in question right at this moment is one passed in Mississippi that bans abortions after 15 weeks. What is special about 15 weeks? Did science just discover biological proof that a 15 week old fetus is deserving of legal protections that a 14 1/2 week old or younger fetus isn't?

The 15 week deadline is in response to the Court's prior ruling allowing unfettered abortion up until 24 weeks, I believe. Since there is no universal scientific consensus on when a zygote should be given equal protection rights and considerations as its host retains as unenumerated constitutional rights, any such determination is based on faith or religious belief.

Ergo, when religions other than evangelical Christianity advocates and sometimes mandates abortions under certain circumstances and situations, the government is not allowed to infringe on those person's rights to freely practice their religion without interference, just like the aforementioned Christians cannot be mandated to have abortions under any law.

Hence the title of this thread.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 09:19 PM | Reply

Yep, a national Daddy DNA Registry is a must if a federal ban on abortion is passed:

twitter.com

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-05-08 09:26 PM | Reply

@#78 ... Did science just discover ...

As I garner as I read your comment, this is not about science.

And I agree.

It is about a religious sect wanting to force their beliefs upon the Country.

No more, no less.

#80 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 09:28 PM | Reply

It is about a religious sect wanting to force their beliefs upon the Country.

It always has been, and it always will be. The same is true with all the other unenumerated rights that the Courts have had to codify constitutional status to because religionists tried to ban them because they claim allowing others these rights somehow is wrong according to their own religiously held beliefs.

The entire movement to control the actions and autonomy of others is nothing more than elevating the religious beliefs of one group over the personal rights of another.

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 09:35 PM | Reply

Yep, a national Daddy DNA Registry is a must if a federal ban on abortion is passed:
twitter.com

#79 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Now! Now! Let's not be too hasty!

--Treebeard Alito

#82 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:39 PM | Reply

Even a PA and a midwife can choose to perform the abortion after the second trimester with no legal issues to be bothered with.
www.findlaw.com
#77 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRD

See, the issue is that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions exclusively due to potential harm/death to the mother or an unviable fetus. A mother who would choose an otherwise elective abortion has made that choice by 24 weeks. Denying late term abortions is the opposite of Pro-life since the life of the mother is at risk or the suffering of the fetus.

#83 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:42 PM | Reply

Gal,

I've posted before men should have reproductive rights too.

A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child.

#84 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 09:44 PM | Reply

Gal,

A DNA father registry like you suggested would make that easier to implement.

#85 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 09:46 PM | Reply

See, the issue is that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions exclusively due to potential harm/death to the mother or an unviable fetus. A mother who would choose an otherwise elective abortion has made that choice by 24 weeks. Denying late term abortions is the opposite of Pro-life since the life of the mother is at risk or the suffering of the fetus.

#83 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-05-08 09:42 PM | REPLY

And if you believe that a physician's assistant or a midwife are qualified to make those decisions on a high risk (to the mother) abortion with zero accountability, you have earned a picture in Webster's dictionary next to the word imbecile.

Even if A doctor decided to perform the abortion without any reason regarding the life or the "viability" of the baby, there's zero implications legally.... Zero, because its been removed from the penal code.

"Penalty for Unlawful Abortion:
New York removed abortion from its Penal Code. No one can be held criminally liable for aborting a fetus, even after the 24th week of pregnancy.
Penal Code Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 were all repealed."

#86 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-08 09:49 PM | Reply

@#84 ... A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child. ...

Surely you meant to say "their" child. Right?

But if your assertion is correct, then there should also be the responsibility for the father to provide healthcare, education, etc.

Or of you the opinion that once a man deposits his sperm in a woman, it is then her responsibility to deal with it?

Yer up...


#87 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 09:50 PM | Reply

Gal,
A DNA father registry like you suggested would make that easier to implement.

#85 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I give that a snowballs chance on the sun of ever occurring, but what do I know.

#88 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:56 PM | Reply

"Here's where people run into trouble."

Which people? What trouble?

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 09:56 PM | Reply

And if you believe that a physician's assistant or a midwife are qualified to make those decisions on a high risk (to the mother) abortion with zero accountability, you have earned a picture in Webster's dictionary next to the word imbecile.
Even if A doctor decided to perform the abortion without any reason regarding the life or the "viability" of the baby, there's zero implications legally.... Zero, because its been removed from the penal code.
"Penalty for Unlawful Abortion:
New York removed abortion from its Penal Code. No one can be held criminally liable for aborting a fetus, even after the 24th week of pregnancy.
Penal Code Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 were all repealed."

#86 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Well, a. the abortion would not occur in a vacuum so other medical professionals would be involved in the vast majority of incidents, b. later term abortions are extremely rare, c. the concept that a woman will reach the 8th month of pregnancy and say screw it abort this thing is absurd, d. assuming your citations are accurate you are discussing 1 state.

But the overarching concept is that late term abortions are rare and more Pro-Life then outlawing abortions

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 09:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"And if you believe that a physician's assistant or a midwife are qualified to make those decisions on a high risk (to the mother) abortion with zero accountability, you have earned a picture in Webster's dictionary next to the word imbecile."

The only person making the decision to have an abortion is the one who's pregnant.

And if you don't understand that, you're an imbecile.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:00 PM | Reply

A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

That would be a big NOPE!

No man should have the right over any woman's body, full stop.

Until and unless women can force men to get vasectomies, or at least be able to kick the father in the nuts.

#92 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:00 PM | Reply

I've posted before men should have reproductive rights too.
A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-08 09:44 PM |

He doesn't have a right to reproductive choice of the pregnant woman. You understand you damned cretin. That's the sole domain of her's.

#93 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 10:00 PM | Reply

A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No he shouldn't.

That makes the pregnant woman into his slave for nine months. Though I'm sure you're fine with that

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:02 PM | Reply

good to see the patriarchy is alive and well

#95 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:03 PM | Reply

I've posted I would prefer to not see abortion outright banned.

#96 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 10:03 PM | Reply

BillJohnson would never say a man has the right to force the woman carrying his child to have an abortion.

But he cheers for the opposite.

He simply doesn't think women are equal to men. No Evangelical Christians do.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:04 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Women could say no to men they don't want that risk.

#98 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 10:04 PM | Reply

A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

That is one way to get the incidents of false rape accusations to increase. I assume that you would allow an exclusion in cases of rape, right?

#99 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:04 PM | Reply

I've posted I would prefer to not see abortion outright banned.
#96 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

^
Then get on board with Roe.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:05 PM | Reply

Snoofy,
Women could say no to men they don't want that risk.
#98 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

^
Then get on board with Roe.
Alito is going to take that away.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:07 PM | Reply

Bills perfect world.

Man rapes woman.

Woman gets impregnated

Man forces woman to carry child to term

Man abandons newborn baby

Rinse and repeat

#102 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:07 PM | Reply

Truth,

Rape and ------ are considered exceptions by most people.

#103 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 10:11 PM | Reply

Truth,

Sounds like you hang out in a rough crowd.

#104 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 10:13 PM | Reply

Truth,
Rape and ------ are considered exceptions by most people.
#103 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

In 6 states' trigger laws they are not nor is the life of the mother.

So add the rapist can force the mother to carry the rape baby to term even if it kills her and the fetus.

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:14 PM | Reply

Truth,
Rape and ------ are considered exceptions by most people.
#103 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Nope, just strong women who I love, admire and respect.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:15 PM | Reply

Truth,
Sounds like you hang out in a rough crowd.

#104 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Nope, just strong women who I love, admire and respect.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:15 PM | Reply

Man rapes woman.

Woman gets impregnated

Government forces woman to carry child to term.

Government cuts all funding for single mothers, child healthcare, public schools...

Both child and mother live miserable lives.

Conservatives blame mother.

#108 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-08 10:15 PM | Reply

Rape and ------ are considered exceptions by most people.
#103 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No.

Most people support abortion rights, regardless of rape or ------.

Explain why rape or ------ means it's okay to abort. Please. Pretty please.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:16 PM | Reply

@#104 Sounds like you hang out in a rough crowd. ...

I note your alias has not yet commented upon my #87...

...
@#84 ... A father should have the right to prohibit a woman from aborting his child. ...

Surely you meant to say "their" child. Right?
...



#110 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 10:28 PM | Reply

The only person making the decision to have an abortion is the one who's pregnant.
And if you don't understand that, you're an imbecile.

#91 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-08 10:00 PM | REPLY

Awe look at snoofy, no argument as usual.

If you have a comment on #86, knock yourself out, dip ------.

#111 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-08 10:30 PM | Reply

Lamp,

Yes....both.

However just like child support it would likely need to be settled in court who is financially responsible.

Again...women can say no if they don't want to risk getting into that sort of situation.

The one thing women do have is complete control over her uterus.

Once she let's a man --------- in her she has compromised herself.

#112 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 10:42 PM | Reply

I assume you enjoyed being raped, little Billy?

#113 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-08 10:44 PM | Reply

Once she let's a man --------- in her she has compromised herself.
#112 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

The misogyny just drips from certain posters comments.

Why do you hate women so much?

#114 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:49 PM | Reply

The one thing women do have is complete control over her uterus.

Freudian slip? I assume you mean vagina? Uterus control is out the door with Roe being overturned

#115 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:50 PM | Reply

If women had control over their uterus little pieces of crap like Bill Johnson would lose their tiny little -------- minds.

#116 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-08 10:52 PM | Reply

You can almost see Bill wanting to call them WHORES and -----!

#117 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:55 PM | Reply

Once she let's a man --------- in her she has compromised herself.
POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-08 10:42 PM | REPLY

You misogynistic pig.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 11:00 PM | Reply

Laura,

You're a hoot.

#119 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-08 11:01 PM | Reply

Once she let's a man --------- in her she has compromised herself.

I see an easy way for women to turn this thing around in a very short time with no SCOTUS required.

#120 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-05-08 11:05 PM | Reply

Once she let's a man --------- in her she has compromised herself.
#112 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Jesus. This is how you feel about your wife?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:12 AM | Reply

If you have a comment on #86, knock yourself out, dip ------.
#111 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

My comment was upstream, here it is again:

"Here's where people run into trouble."
Which people? What trouble?

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:13 AM | Reply

@#119 ... You're a hoot. ...

That's the best response you have? An ad hominem attack?

Wow. Just friggin' wow.

I had been giving your alias more credit than that.

Obviously I need to reevaluate my opinion.


#123 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-09 12:22 AM | Reply

"I've posted before men should have reproductive rights too."

History on line #1: something about men never really caring about this before, in the macro.

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 02:08 AM | Reply

" just like child support it would likely need to be settled in court who is financially responsible."

The Rapist, or the Involuntary Handmaiden?!? You really need a jury???

You. Are. One. Sick. ----.

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 02:10 AM | Reply

Lamp,

Laura calling me a misogynist is a hoot.

You know...considering.

#126 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 06:28 AM | Reply

For some reason, Lamp has decided to donate their alias to the trolls in this and another thread. Which is odd, because they're usually quite a reasonable poster.

#127 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-09 10:25 AM | Reply

This has truly been one of the most idiotic threads ever. I'm sure many of you arguing for the "right to choose" are sincere in your beliefs, but none of you have been arguing in good faith in this space, AFAICS.

#128 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-09 05:52 PM | Reply

Sent,

"This has truly been one of the most idiotic threads ever"

How could it not be?

The premise of the article is absurd.

What's next?

Only atheists will be free to take a stand on anything lest it violate someone's first amendment rights.

#129 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 06:23 PM | Reply

I'm sure many of you arguing for the "right to choose" are sincere in your beliefs, but none of you have been arguing in good faith in this space, AFAICS.
#128 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Here's a good faith argument.

First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

Hobby Lobby used that freedom to ignore part of ACA that went against their religious beliefs.

Why can't Muslims do the same about the parts of any abortion ban that goes against their religious beliefs?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 06:28 PM | Reply

Only atheists will be free to take a stand on anything lest it violate someone's first amendment rights.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-09 06:23 PM | REPLY

Oh do STFU already Bill Johnson. You're free to spew your religious beliefs until the cows come home. What you are NOT allowed to do is force those beliefs onto others. That's the crux of the matter.

#131 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-09 06:39 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

America ain't seen nothing yet.

When Muslims really get serious about enforcing their beliefs in American culture, atheists will be dealing with a very different group of people than Christians.

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek.

Muslims want jihad. For now Muslim Americans are biding their time until their numbers increase.

#132 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 06:40 PM | Reply

This has truly been one of the most idiotic threads ever. I'm sure many of you arguing for the "right to choose" are sincere in your beliefs, but none of you have been arguing in good faith in this space, AFAICS.

#128 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Here's a simple argument that even you might be able to understand.

Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is medieval level barbarism.

It will cost lives.

I realize that people like billj believe that women deserve such treatment for allowing men to --------- inside of them, but, well that concept is misogynistic.

#133 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-09 06:44 PM | Reply

For now Muslim Americans are biding their time until their numbers increase.
#132 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Right now fundamentalist christians are spewing their barbaric religious intolerance on us, so let's worry about them first, ok

#134 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-09 06:46 PM | Reply

"When Muslims really get serious about enforcing their beliefs in American culture, atheists will be dealing with a very different group of people than Christians."

^
Dumb scare tactic.

Also, something that ought to be illegal if it intrudes on other people's rights.

Because unlike Alito, I believe people have a right to privacy.

Alito and the rest of the Supreme Court anti-abortionists believe Big Brother is not incompatible with the Constitution.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 07:15 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Dumb scare tactic."

Read about communities where their numbers increased.

I'm not trying to scare anyone.

I'm telling you what is in store for America.

Muslims are split into sects (I don't claim to know much about it) but I do know they have a lot more daily rituals than Christians that will likely be protected by the First Amendment.

#136 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 08:03 PM | Reply

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bill Johnson. No no I don't. I love it. Right wing Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are cut from the same bolt of fabric. There is literally no difference between the two.

#137 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-09 08:14 PM | Reply

"Read about communities where their numbers increased."

Link?

"Muslims are split into sects (I don't claim to know much about it) but I do know they have a lot more daily rituals than Christians that will likely be protected by the First Amendment."

Um, they pray five times a day. It's not really a big deal. You've never touched a Muslim in real life?

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 08:17 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Read for yourself....lazy.

#139 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 08:28 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

My wife worked for a big retailer and a Muslim manager demanded a private room to pray.

Like I said....you ain't seen nothing yet.

#140 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 08:36 PM | Reply

"Muslims are split into sects (I don't claim to know much about it) but I do know they have a lot more daily rituals than Christians"

Dude...you're throwing shade on something you admit you don't know anything about.

I grew up near a Catholic Church. Bells were announcing the start of Mass at 6am, 7am, and 8am every day of the week, as well as the noon and 6pm Angelus. On Sunday it was 6, 7, 8, 9, 10:30, noon, and 6pm.

So at this point, the difference is one is called to prayer six times a day, and one is called to prayer five-to-seven times a day.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 08:37 PM | Reply

"My wife worked for a big retailer and a Muslim manager demanded a private room to pray."

Well, if that's not the end of the world for Christians, nothing is.

It kept your sister from freely exercising her religion....right?

#142 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 08:39 PM | Reply

Laura,

"Right wing Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are cut from the same bolt of fabric."

You're a hoot.

#143 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 08:41 PM | Reply

Dan,

"It kept your sister from freely exercising her religion....right?"

She might claim her as your sister but I don't.

#144 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-05-09 08:42 PM | Reply

My wife worked for a big retailer and a Muslim manager demanded a private room to pray.
Like I said....you ain't seen nothing yet.
#140 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-05-09 08:36 PM | REPLY

The Holy Bible says to pray in secret so you should be happy that that Muslim wanted a place to pray.

#145 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-09 08:57 PM | Reply

So at this point, the difference is one is called to prayer six times a day, and one is called to prayer five-to-seven times a day.

Perhaps his point is that Muslims actually go?

#146 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-05-09 09:00 PM | Reply

"It kept your sister from freely exercising her religion....right?"

MY APOLOGIES. That sentence was entered in error.

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 09:04 PM | Reply

"That sentence was entered in error."

I meant wife. Again, my mistake. Back to the issue:

Did your wife have her freedom of religion abridged in even the most minuscule way?

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 09:07 PM | Reply

"My wife worked for a big retailer and a Muslim manager demanded a private room to pray."

You'd rather she do it all up in your wife's face?

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort