I've heard a number of people say the same thing. I once heard somebody say that someone he knew was pro-choice and he didn't like that, so he said she should have been aborted.

"Real pro life" is subjective. Who determines what a real pro-life person is? Are they pro life if they want abortion to be outlawed 100%? Are they pro life if they think there should be exceptions for rape or incest? Are they pro life if they're anti-abortion but support the death penalty?

My standard is, in a nutshell, (trigger warning) what the Catholic Church teaches. Life is sacred from the womb to the tomb, all people have dignity, choices that affect others like decisions about who should live and die shouldn't be taken lightly in fact it's best we leave that up to God to decide. From conception to natural death, life must be preserved. That's what a true pro lifer is to me.

This re-affirms my stance that you're not pro-life, but anti-liberty.

In that, you seek to push your religious convictions on others, violating the first amendment of anyone seeking pro-choice. You may claim to be American, but in this, you are not.

I'm not pushing my beliefs on you any more than feminist women in blood spattered costumes and baby dolls hanging around their neck threatening to kill supreme court justices if they don't get their way. No pressure there right? Lol

I would like to add, that I am open to hearing any argument that can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the soul exists and is placed into a fetus at any point in conception. However, I have not been provided any such evidence that the soul, or "God" exists.

Further, Christians seek to abuse the first amendment and desire to make this a "Freedom for Christianity" state. Instead of "Freedom of (which includes from) religion." This is antithetical to what the founding fathers of our country sought for ourselves.

Can you imagine the rage that would be held if Muslim prayer was held in the public eye during a football game by a team? I can hear the faux rage against "Wokism" now.

This has always been about control by the right-wing.

Just ask Kaepernick. Apparently, there's caveats to free speech that he didn't know about.

Imagine, rights being taken away from people who've had them their whole lives.
Imagine, the right wing rioting and attacking the capitol because they were going to lose political power.
Imagine, that for years, the left has been saying that religion has sought to seize power in government and push their dogmatic, archaic, and extremely outdated views on others through law and policy.

But, your false equivalence would make sense, if you were out of touch.
These women want their liberties of choice to be restored.
These justices sought to take away such liberty.
I won't say that they deserve such threats.
But it is naïve to suggest that such extremism is unexpected and unwarranted.

Being pro >> [redacted] choice* FTFY
is a religion too you know. >> I wonder if you'll explain that.

You worship your own self interest at the church of planned Parenthood >> PPH isn't a church.

with the scalpel and forceps as your sacramentals and dead fetuses as your martyrs >> So, you don't understand how martyrdom works, got it.

and you threaten violence and spew racist hate >> Citation needed. I assume you mean "you" as in the collective "you." Weren't you just talking about putting people in a box? Your words: "That would not be the stance of a real pro life person like myself and most pro lifers. Good job singling out the wackos and generalizing. I can do that too." I have not done this with you, and have only responded to what you say. So, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Then again, it is a known trope that Christians aren't too keen on that, otherwise that phrase wouldn't exist.

towards anyone who takes away your right to kill. >> You can't kill what isn't born. You're making your argument centered around your religious convictions rather than through the secular method as our founding fathers intended.

Quite the Satan's pride and joy I dare say. >> Is that supposed to offend me? Why would being associated with your devil bother someone who's agnostic? Given the demographic of the radical right evangelists, I take that as a badge of honor in opposition to an ignorant base who seeks to oppress those who desire freedom, are gay, trans, or any other religion. Christianity has fallen from what Jesus had sought for it. Now, it is the shining example of Social Exclusion.

I won't bother responding to your other comments since there's no reasoning with anyone who thinks it's empowering for women to kill their own kind. Good day.
>> You won't bother responding because you cannot speak on a secular basis. You lack the intellectual fore thought to have such a discussion without relying on your invisible man up in the sky.

Admittedly, I was apprehensive in discussing with you, but I found your arguments to be such a nothing burger that I don't know what I was nervous about in the first place. Enjoy ignorance through the opiate of the masses.

"Being pro abortion is a religion too you know. You worship your own self interest at the church of planned Parenthood with the scalpel and forceps as your sacramentals and dead fetuses as your martyrs"

That's just silly

𝔄𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔡𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱 ℑ
ℭ𝔬𝔫𝔤𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔰 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔩𝔩 𝔪𝔞𝔨𝔢 𝔫𝔬 𝔩𝔞𝔴 𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔭𝔢𝔠𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔞𝔫 𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔰𝔥𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔬𝔫, 𝔬𝔯 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔥𝔦𝔟𝔦𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔣𝔯𝔢𝔢 𝔢𝔵𝔢𝔯𝔠𝔦𝔰𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔬𝔣; 𝔬𝔯 𝔞𝔟𝔯𝔦𝔡𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔣𝔯𝔢𝔢𝔡𝔬𝔪 𝔬𝔣 𝔰𝔭𝔢𝔢𝔠𝔥, 𝔬𝔯 𝔬𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔰; 𝔬𝔯 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔯𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔭𝔢𝔬𝔭𝔩𝔢 𝔭𝔢𝔞𝔠𝔢𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔶 𝔱𝔬 𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔪𝔟𝔩𝔢, 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔱𝔬 𝔭𝔢𝔱𝔦𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔊𝔬𝔳𝔢𝔯𝔫𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔣𝔬𝔯 𝔞 𝔯𝔢𝔡𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔤𝔯𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔞𝔫𝔠𝔢𝔰.

The First Amendment forbids the CONGRESS of the USA from imposing a federal-wide religion on the states. It allows for the freedom of the individual states - which is the body of its citizens - to do so if they so choose.

The act of her Constitutionally protected expression and it framed in her religious beliefs if she so chooses IS at the essence of what being American is. The attempt to inhibit that by imposition of rule from above is the antithesis of being American, the tyranny against which a revolution was waged.

If the federal government was prohibited from establishing an official religion for everybody, I find it hard to believe that they would let states do the same thing.

Come on, man, we've this discussed this very subject how many times over the years (incl not too long ago)? The first one, some 3 or 4 years ago, you looked it up and posted TWO states that currently have an official state religion on the books. Granted, they are no longer enforced and serve as mere historical curiosities now, but they are there, as you have verified.

Again,

ℭ𝔬𝔫𝔤𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔰 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔩𝔩 𝔪𝔞𝔨𝔢 𝔫𝔬 𝔩𝔞𝔴 𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔭𝔢𝔠𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔞𝔫 𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔰𝔥𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔬𝔫.

Congress. That's federal, not state legislature.

Right.

Putting law and policy into place which largely reflects that of the Catholic church (or any other) is a violation of that amendment. Insofar, that it is one thing to publicly declare "the established religion is Christianity" as opposed to the legal loophole which is being exploited by those very same Christians to enact laws that reflect (in this case) Christian values.

I am pretty sure that these values are reflected across all 50 states as found by example within the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

A fetus is not part of any religious denomination as it cannot express such views, nor can religion claim a fetus without the consent of the mother.

Thus, in this instance, while she [Kate] is free to exercise whatever religious views she wants, it is unconstitutional and anti-American to seek to impose such views upon others who do not seek to be part of any cabal, cult, religion, coven, etc. Tenets of any such religion should also not be reflected into the laws of the land.

There are common sense laws - don't steal, don't murder another citizen/human being. A fetus/embryo is not a living human being. It is factual that there was an embryo that was frozen for 27 years and carried to term. Human beings cannot do this.

I digress, religion does not have license over the idea of a moral compass.

Who on Earth said Kate's views were going to become federal law, let alone Catholic ones on a Protestant majority federation?

The purpose of the clause was to protect the practice of religion, not prohibit it or impose a select religion it on the FEDERAL level.

There were states who had their own official religions then (even now a couple still have them on the books), and had religious requirements and tests in order to hold office, etc. The First Amendment allowed for them to continue doing so.

Religions have shaped our morality and law as well as culture more so than anything else including, um, uh, something else, I'm sure, Protestantism being a big mover in the US, and one major reason why we ended reigning supreme while Canada and Mexico and the rest of the Americas, nay, planet, twiddle their anxious little thumbs in our shadow all these years after we took them out of the donkey and cart thatched roof semi-post Medievel era after that was flattened by the rampaging Germanic wehrmacht.

"A fetus/embryo is not a living human being."

Facts say otherwise, agenda molded opinion not making for the most sound version of reality. Outside of sound proof echo chambers, that is,,, If they weren't, then there's one big scam going on fueling an pricey industry to terminate the existence of select fetal/embrynic non living human being thingies.

If someone doesn't believe in God, they can't use that as a standard to determine who lives and who dies (and I'm not talking about just killing random people on the street, I'm talking about things like the death penalty)

But you don't believe in the Bible or Jesus or God given the streams you follow and post to on a regular basis so how is this relevant?

Your attempt at misdirection has failed; what I believe is not the issue. The point is that you are claiming that your religion makes you a fascist, yet you contradict the very book your beliefs are supposedly based on.

Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't enjoy mocking what it contains with your posts.

I also believe Homer's Iliad exists.

That doesn't make it true.

The simplest and best way to preserve the most lives is to take oneself out of the equation.

Can you imagine all the creatures that died not just to sustain us, but to serve as mere accoutrements in lavish lifestyles which are contrary to what the faithful would claim God wanted, from clothing to our cars and homes to those weekly circulars left on our doorstep that most folks toss out without ever looking at.

The first transgression Genesis says God saw was Adam & Eve covering themselves, a sin people have codified into law today. To COMMIT! Jesus and His followers wrapped a cloth around their bodies, and He - and the Book - advocated modesty, yet those trees die by the thousands every week so JCPenny and Kmart can get us to buy more clothes and fancy too.

People do these things because they think they can because they think they are Godlike. But no problem because a dunk of water on the head washes away the sin that we dress up in every day to remind Him we committed. The sin of aspiring to be Godlike.

We MASSACRED people for not worshipping a Jesus they had never heard of and not wearing enough clothing got them branded savages, when in reality they were closer to that Divinity which their murderers claim as their propriety.

What religions teach and what their adherrents tend to be more near opposites, justified by punishing those not of the faith for the trangressions that we commit but claim is alright for ourselves to do because at least we know we can stop doing them one day on a day that's never today,,,

"Catholic Judges who actually follow Catholic Teaching"

And if they were Muslim judges following Muslim teaching?

"Life is sacred from the womb to the tomb, all people have dignity, choices that affect others like decisions about who should live and die shouldn't be taken lightly in fact it's best we leave that up to God to decide."

Don't tell anyone, but THIS is the real reason I never joined any party. Yeah, it wasn't because my wee cranium was so above the need to join them in making the shrill noise the congregation makes.

Young Modda saw Reagan & Co hating life that wasn't their own while calling for the saving of the unborn while calling for the killing of prisoners judged more evil than these same people who wanted to wage war in the name of filling their gas tanks not too expensively. So no Republican for me.

Democrats were the opposites - no war, no capital punishments, but flush Jr down the toilet before he comes to term because priorities like more sleep in order to have as much energy to concentrate on career advancement so that when they're too old to bear kids the way they used to accidentally do, they can afford to call on that science to revise that view that that cyst in the womb which was a malicious predator sucking the lifeforce out to instead now deam it a $15,000 investment worth requiring the best care a petri dish can offer. So no Democrat for me.

Yup, folks, the secret's out. I'm not anti-ideology because I'm so amazingly cool and wisened beyond my tears, I'm against them becuase they're all sustenance for bloated hypocrisy.

Now this comment will get deleted too for me again daring to state that the two fake sides are the SAME fake side.

Let's be honest - "pro-life" is a gross misnomer for what your agenda represents.

Anti-Liberty is a better fit.

I take it you're new to this site, huh?

What do you consider a baby?

*Sorry 60 million non-yet-living* parasitic clump of cells of the species homo sapien that are most definitely NOT babies.

Careful though, the reaction will be to make it the law of the land, not just as in some partisan phonies saying that for the sake of auditioning for a court gig, but codified into law. They managed to do it even in Ireland, the backlash here will make that look an eyedropper standing in the shadow of the parted Red Sea, threatening to collapse upon and consume those in roaring chariots with their guilded spears,,,

Someone sure likes to throw the word 'triggered" around. But it looks to me like the one making so many pointlessly hostile posts is the triggered one.

"I'm excited and glad to see our government do something right for a change."

Right is a matter of perspective.

You may see the outcome as right, but the the method?
Three of them lied about what they would do regarding this "law of the land" when trying to get approved for the Supreme Court job.
They defied the Court's own ruling on the matter half a century ago, yet claimed they considered history while doing it.
The defied precedent.
This action now set precedent, and their actions already stank of partisan prior to this. They've turned the court into an agenda guided tool, cheapening it, demeaning it, sullying it.

The only thing their means did get right was in pointing out that Roe vs Wade created law, but under the guise of rectifying that, so in effect did they.