time to get angry comments from triggered liberals

i actually agree

Follow the science. Lol.

Yeah

agreed

Sins of the father to be passed down 5 generations then jk

My meme was a reference to the Arian heresy, which was popular during the time of the Roman empire.

I agree

It's an absurdity, but it's no more absurd than believing in Bigfoot, or that the world was created in 7 days 6,000 years ago, or that eating shellfish will send you to hell.

Most of these beliefs are harmless if held and practiced in private. When one group tries to impose its superstitions upon others using the force of government, however, problems arise.

We may not know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about everything - but as products of the Enlightenment, we do know they were 100% flat-out against theocracy and superstition. Their view of the world was informed by the devastating factional religious wars of 16th-18th Century Europe, and they concluded that the fusion of state and religion is not what they wanted for our country.

How do we know that? They told us, many times, and they put it into the First Amendment.

If y'all want to found a mental MAGA-stan which hearkens back to pre-Enlightenment ways of thinking, go for it - but recognize that it's fundamentally un-American, and we ain't coming.

We aren't arguing over a moral issue. Killing babies has never been a moral issue.
The founding fathers were actually agnostic (not Christian in the traditional sense) but never allowed abortion or any other form of infanticide. Abortion in the 18th century was common, but only as a "it's the kid or the mom" last resort.
The leftwing lie about a baby being a "lump of flesh" from the 70's has been thoroughly debunked by sonograms.
We're not arguing over morality. No culture considers killing to be a "moral" issue. We're not arguing about "health care." No one considers harvesting unborn babies orgams for science to be "healthcare." We're not arguing over "woman's rights." Woman have no innate "right" to kill their kids. While common law recognizes parents total control over their kids, this has always had limits. Common law lets you beat your kids, but not starve them.
We're not arguing over morality. We're just having the classic argument mankind has had a hundred times before: at what point does an obvious human whose human rights are not currently recognized by the Gov't receive human rights?
We had this conversation for hundreds of years with aboriginals and black Africans. Do they count as half a human? Do they count as 3/5th? Let's use science to justify dehumanizion!
We had this conversation about gypsies in the 20th century. Over a million were exterminated in Europe for being "sub human," never mind that realistically there's no genetic difference between between a caucasian and a half caucasian half Indian.
The Chinese had this conversation a few years ago when they decided Turkish Uighurs weren't fully human due to not bring "really" Chinese.
And we'll continue to have the conversation forever until we finally nuke ourselves back to the stone age.
But it's not a moral issue. Never has been. It's simply a question of how human you have to be to get human rights. I say heartbeat law is probably close (6-8 weeks,) but I'm willing to error on the side of safe rather than sorry. You say as soon as you get a social security number and can care for yourself (whenever that is...)
But it isn't a moral issue. It's just a question of whether we're gonna kill more babies or less babies. I can convert to atheism tomorrow and still have to ask the question: how many "subhuman" kills is too many?

So do you agree or not?

no

Thx I didn't want to read all that

well I didn't read it all either lol

We're the same person, we can't read at all. Remember how we failed kindergarten?

no, I thought that was 1st grade....

no, we learned to read in kindergarten

my mistake
so we do know how to read then

Yeah, we're just really stupid

we really are :(