So pro-life they’ll kill you for it
Just to be clear. They believe all life is sacred. So they must preserve life at all costs. And their solution to this is to kill MORE people?
Sure, makes complete sense eye roll
See, you’re approaching this like they have some sort of consistent standard they adhere to. The goal with these kinds of bans isn’t to “”“protect life”“” as they say, no no; the goal, as it is, and as it has always been, is to simply punish women for the crime of existing.
Jesus fucking Christ what s bullshit headline.
The article is about one legislator in Missouri introducing a state constitutional amendment defining a “person” as “every human being with a unique DNA code regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth.”
It’s very concerning when a politician claims to know what God demands.
The very first time I debated a christian about this, in 1992, I asked them what about back alley abortions, and he said he would charge all concerned, the conceivers and the abortionists, with murder.
They’ve been telling us the whole time this was their ultimate intention.
God demands blood.
Honestly, if you gave them the option to either kill no one or kill a mother along with her baby, they’re going to choose option B every day and twice on Sunday.
‘God demands equal justice’
Let me respond to that idiocy with a lyric from Nine Inch Nails: “Your god is dead and no one cares…”
““The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
[Methodist Pastor David Barnhart]
And one they’re born they become their parent(s) problem.
The first part of this reads like a Carlin bit
Was thinking the same…
Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.
How much murder is it to bomb school kids in another country? We should seek the death penalty at the highest decision making levels for that.
God demands equal justice!
If they are already out of the womb AND not white? Then it’s legitimate defense because they are terrorists.
Hmm? That’s not “murder”, murder is obviously not allowed? That’s “defense”. Their Jesus talked a lot about how important that was, just a minute lemme go find it…
This comment is sarcasm right?
In case it’s not, it was defense of what? How was blowing up a girl’s elementary school an act of defense?
sarcasm right?
Right.
it’s weird how the states is trying to make itself into a religious opressive state while bombing one
Actually God only demands a monetary fine if you cause a miscarriage in someone who didn’t want one (Exodus 21), and requires that you drink a potion that will give you a miscarriage if you got pregnant by someone who isn’t your husband (Numbers 5). If only those Republicans could read their own Bible, they would be very upset.
I believe the new testament also makes it pretty clear that it’s not up to the followers to dole out God’s justice. Something something turn the other cheek and something something let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Also pretty fucking arrogant to claim to speak on behalf of a diety. And pretty fucking stupid to believe anyone claiming such.
That it is a monetary fine is really crucial as one of two ways of establishing that the Mosaic law that Christians leverage for their legalism does not consider an unborn fetus a person.
First, as noted, the fine for a miscarriage is monetary only if no harm comes to the woman. If the woman is hurt, the Mosaic concept of reciprocal justice (eye for eye, etc), which was likely borrowed from the code of Hammurabi, kicks in. The death of an unborn fetus has no reciprocal punishment because that form of justice applies to people.
The second way of establishing that an unborn fetus is not considered a person in the hebrew bible is right in the second version of the creation story in Genesis 2:7
then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (emphasis mine)
So here first, and in various other places in the bible (and in the broader Greco-Roman culture in which the nascent Christianity would later form), life began at first breath.
Yeah when I was a Christian I thought that all was pretty explicitly clear
Please be aware that those are common misrepresentations of those texts popularised by the NIV translation.
Many translations show Exodus 21 demands life for life and a fine if the child survives but suffers injury. The NIV is one of several exceptions (although probably the most popular one) that instead translates it as a fine for a miscarriage (the original NASB also said this, but the 1995 revision corrected it).
Numbers 5 is a religious test and requires God to enact punishment. The “potion” has no abortifacient components and commentaries suggest that the punishment was infertility. The NIV is again an exception here suggesting miscarriage when most other translations (eg. NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Amplified, Young’s Literal, etc.) do not.
By all means call out their misuse of the Bible or their lack of consistency with it, but please be careful making claims like this – it just undermines credibility.
Wait, this was a defense of the Bible and the people who use it to inform their beliefs about abortion???
The fact that the meaning can be the complete opposite depending on what (modern) translation you use? Who’s credibility is being undermined here again?
No, it’s pointing out that these sort of claims are flawed and the need to be careful not to undermine one’s own argument. People on both sides of the argument use the Bible incorrectly or are unaware of the nuance of the text.
As I said, I’m all for calling out the hypocrisy, but it’s important to get it right. And if different translations have different views (and one isn’t willing to get into the weeds of what the original text actually says), then perhaps we shouldn’t be using those passages as a “slam dunk”?
This doesn’t seem to be a NIV issue.
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands
—Exodus 21:22, NRSV
May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.
—Numbers 5:22, NRSV
What translation(s) are referring to that seem to suggest something different?
God says mandatory abortions apparently, hooo boy, Wes Groggins is sure gonna feel like a dope when he hears!
Well, isn’t that weird. I guess all the gaslighting xtians were wrong? They were lecturing everyone on Tone And Civility both before and right after Trollito’s corrupted court overturned 50 years of law.
Saying that talking about Gilead States was just being unreasonable and hysterical. That they didn’t want to kill women or doctors or anything…
“Pro-life” has never been about protecting life. It was always a means to control women.
I just call it anti-choice.
I call it “forced birth”.
‘Just top being sluts, mkay?’
Exactly, just like the freedom of religion has always been a way to prevent children from learning things!
Okay…but first…death penalty for Epstein pedophiles. Then, we try every politician listed in those files for pedophile crimes. Try them, not necessarily convict…because they might be innocent…maybe…let the juries decide…then execute everyone found guilty of pedophilia with Epstein… I’m willing to bet - there won’t be many Republicans left to pass laws like this.
Ah, yes, I remember this part of the Bible. If I remember correctly, the Romans laughed when Jesus promised revenge. And then He jumped off the cross and killed every single person at Golgotha without mercy. And then He marched on Rome and decapitated Emperor Tiberius with His own hands for attempting to stop Jesus. They don’t call Him “Vengeful Christ” for nothing.
It stands to reason, then, that the Republicans must exact revenge, as Jesus would’ve done.
I’m more enamoured by the last stand when Jesus was arrested.
When the Romans came to arrest Jesus with Malhcus, the high servant of the Jewish High Priest.
Peter drew his sword in defence of Jesus and severs Malhcus ear.
On seeing this Jesus responded 'The cup my father has given me is empty shall we fill it?"
He then put his hand on Malhcus and said “Suffer ye thus” and snapped Malhcus’s neck with a sickening crack.
