HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY AMERICA!

Women aren't feeling very independent.

Just sayin'.

Please don't start a feminist rant now...

Women's Rights = Feminism in your eyes?

maybe feminist rants just aren't what he wanted to hear atm. I can't really think of a time when I wanted to hear one if I'm being honest

Rant, or lecture?

neither one

So, you're not interested in women's rights?
Lecture does not necessarily mean disciplinary rhetoric. Lecture is also used in the context of teaching.

but what if I don't need to be taught...

Why wouldn't you be?

indoctrination is when the information is false

So, what information is false?

nope. I will support women's rights. I just don't support indoctrination. there's nothing wrong with that

What indoctrination?
Who is being indoctrinated?
How are they being indoctrinated?
What's being said?
What, to you, separates education from indoctrination?

cuz...maybe I already have and inkling? they picked me for the weak link

What weak link?

As a reminder, no one is keeping you in this conversation. You're here of your own volition and we're having just that - a conversation.

nvm about the weak link. I completely understand. just wanted to let you know I don't need any indoctrination

Indoctrination? Don't you think that carries a severely negative connotation on the notion of women's rights?

"are you arguing we should kill those people [brain dead patients on life support] too? and I told you. simplified."

So, given your answer, you think we shouldn't.

But guess what? When a doctor sees a brain dead patient, they declare them dead. There's no bringing back a braindead patient. The body may function through the use of life support, but no one's home. Given your precedent in argument, this would be murder. So, who's going to pay for the medical bill to keep braindead patients alive?

The GOP sure as f**k won't. We can't even get universal health care for those who are alive. Why would we expect "Socialist healthcare" for those who are brain dead? So, is it then murder for the patient's family to not keep paying it? Man, religion just blows my mind at how limited it is in its comprehension.

first off, if there was absolutely no hope they could regain consciousness, then they would not be able to sense and respond to changes in their surroundings, and would therefore be dead. so I'd say that if the family was willing to stop life support then that would not be murder, GRANTED there was never no way to bring them back into consciousness. however, a baby in the womb can. and there's a very good chance that the baby will survive childbirth and will have a nice full life. but you're arguing and saying that since the baby can't answer math equations or something that he's dead and should be aborted.

first off, if there was absolutely no hope they could regain consciousness, then they would not be able to sense and respond to changes in their surroundings,
>> That's a coma, that's different.

and would therefore be dead. so I'd say that if the family was willing to stop life support then that would not be murder, GRANTED there was never no way to bring them back into consciousness. however, a baby in the womb can.
>> "Can" being the operative word. We don't deal in prophetic policy. We focus laws based on what is immediate and current. If we based our laws on potential, our country would look very different, I assure you.
and there's a very good chance that the baby will survive childbirth and will have a nice full life. but you're arguing and saying that since the baby can't answer math equations or something that he's dead and should be aborted.
>> That's not my argument. It's close, but not at all accurate. My argument is since the fetus cannot contemplate its existence, that is, to show the impulse of self preservation, there's nobody home. It is not "alive" though it is "living matter." As for "should be aborted?" Also a misconception that you're applying to me. I am saying that the interests of the fetus do not come into play. The "should" part of the equation is the decision of the person providing life support to this living tissue. The "should" is not my place to say. Nor yours, or anyone elses. Just the person deciding whether or not to carry.

so he shouldn't get the chance to see his mother's face and see the great wide world? here's where my philosophy comes into play ig. human. life. is. sacred.

To have the chance means that the fetus is currently viable beyond the life support. Your argument presumes the fetus is viable. Your argument also presumes that the mother doesn't have a choice, thereby giving her less bodily autonomy than a corpse who can choose whether or not to donate their organs to sustain life of others.

And trust me, this world? It's far from great. Human life is sacred, I share that sentiment.

can I say thanks real quick for not deleting any of my comments yet? anyway, no the baby can't live without the mother. so what you're saying is that the baby isn't human then, bc you said human life is sacred and we should kill babies in the womb in the same breath

Nothing of what you said, is what I said. Also, I don't delete comments I am engaged in - USUALLY. Sometimes I have to when it is blatant violation of stream/imgflip rules. Otherwise, I flag and let someone else delete it.

Not sure what you mean by "baby" at this point. Do you mean after it is born? Or while it is still - oh you said "babies in the womb."

You see, it's very hard to hold an educated conversation with people who use your terminology as a baby is defined as the following: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

You cannot be both a baby and be in the womb. Going off of that definition I will respond to your other statements...

A fetus *is* human. But if it does not meet the physiological definition as I have previously defined, it is not "alive." Kill holds the wrong connotation, given the context of the situation. Also, saying that "we should kill babies in the womb" presumes that I seek to terminate all pregnancies. This is blood libel, and a common tactic used by Hitler to demonize his political enemies.

What I say "we" "should" "do" is let the mother decide whether or not she wants to carry her fetus to term and deliver a baby into the world. I personally don't care what people do with their fetuses as it isn't my business. Once a child is born, then we have more to talk about on what "we" should do to protect the health of the *born* child.

You bring up a good reminder, though. Please, stop putting words in my mouth and try to actually use your brain. Get out of your comfort box, and consider the opposition.

You wanna know how freedom of religion works?
How it should work: "That is against my religion, therefore I cannot do it."
How it doesn't work but Christofascists are working to make this a reality: "It's against MY religion, so YOU shouldn't do it."

Given that, what do you think about enacting some Islamic law? Or maybe Hindu Law? Would that be fair?

Seriously. Stop. Loaded question + ad hominem.

No, it was a point blank question. Where's the ad hominem. It was not meant to insult, that wasn't the intention. You have my sincere apologies.

It's fine. The question was asked in an aggressive context, perhaps implying that I was sexist. I was genuinely confused when I read your first comment under the meme. I still don't know what you are referencing for sure.

My wife was pretty upset that today, over 30 million women now have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. She's not feeling like this is the land of the free. And with the notion that SCOTUS wants to revisit same-sex marriage, there are people within my family who that would affect as well.

So, I said, "Women aren't feeling very independent."

On that off the cuff comment, you asked me to not start a "feminist rant." To which, the subject on the table is women's rights, you gave the impression that women's rights are intrinsically feminist.

Not trying to start an angry fight with you.

I see that now you're burning the flag your party created. is that true? I agree with you that ideologies behind it were wrong

I guess they only teach certain parts of history where you went to school huh?

Try reading up on Nixon's southern strategy and the great party flip due to civil rights movement before you come off sounding like a 12 year old.

XD ever heard of the reconstructionists?

Nice deflection. Your point still is pointless. The parties flipped in the 60's. 1960's, not 1860's. The meme is still relevant.

XD ever heard of Abraham Lincoln?

He obviously has since he's done his history.

Since you're asking whether or not he's heard of him, Lincoln must be novel to you. Which, in turn, means you don't know your history.

So you know, Lincoln was not a conservative. He was progressive, as is the modern Democrat Party. The Republicans of today do not represent the Republican party of the Civil War. What's even more odd to your assertion is that if the Democrat party is still "the rebels" why is it that you really only find Southern Republicans (typically) with confederate flags, and defending statues of confederate soldiers for the sake of "heritage?"

Coincidence? I think not.

hey...ever heard of sarcasm? it's this thing that people do....anyway, that's irrelevant. oh, and Lincoln was a Republican. they didn't have "conservatives" then. I doubt he approved of child sacrifice. I've never flown a Democrat..ahem, Confederate flag, and usually the people that do are either actual racist or they think of it as the flag of the south, not of the confederacy. and I don't think ripping down statues is too hot tbh.

Sure, I've heard of sarcasm. Do you know what a target audience is? Or what it means to be tone deaf? Surely, you've heard how sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet...?

Lincoln was a Republican. they didn't have "conservatives" then.
>> There wasn't a conservative mindset, but the ideology and what it defines has always existed - an appeal to what is traditional, or already in place (in this context.)

I doubt he approved of child sacrifice.
>> Who's sacrificing children?

I've never flown a Democrat..ahem, Confederate flag, and usually the people that do are either actual racist or they think of it as the flag of the south, not of the confederacy. and I don't think ripping down statues is too hot tbh.
>> You do realize that those statues were not raised immediately after the civil war, but in the eary to mid 1900s in response to the civil rights movement?

Did you know "In God We Trust" wasn't "coined" until the 1900s?

I should hope they weren't raised immediately after the civil war. that'd be concerning

They wanted to put "Mind your business," on money not joking.

Ha! That would've been great, then women's rights would still be untouched today...

not mind your offspring's business

> Continuing chain
"not mind your offspring's business"
If my daughter wants to get an abortion, I will support her. That's as far as minding my offspring's business goes.

okie not her offspring's business then

Old English ofspring "children or young collectively, descendants," literally "those who spring off (someone)," from of "away, away from" (see off (prep.)) + springan "to spring" (see spring (v.)).

Since a fetus is not an offspring in this context, they don't have business as they aren't alive. They may be living tissue, but they aren't alive.

technically.... he is alive (or she whichever)

How do you define alive?

it's probly similar to the way a lot of people do. yk? the four criteria? yeah, a baby in the womb is pretty helpless, but aren't we all to some degree?

I don't know. I obviously define "alive" differently. Enlighten me.

sure. the baby will have a heartbeat at 9-10 weeks. he'll kick at around 18. but when is he alive? when his cells start developing and creating living tissue. how do you define alive?

Alive is when something has sentience and can consider its existence and feel.

Case in point, your heart and organs can function, you can trigger the nerves to move the limbs through electrostimulation. But when your brain ceases to function (or in the case of a fetus, you lack a fully functional one) you are considered brain dead. Functioning only on life support.

A heartbeat is not a decent guage by which one can consider something alive.

Do you consider jellyfish dead? They have no hearts. Nor do starfish. Are those not considered "alive" to you?

so grass isn't alive....I take it you're not using the biological definition then

> Continued thread
"so grass isn't alive....I take it you're not using the biological definition then"
Before I make my definition, let me just say that tumors, by your definition, are alive AND human DNA. Yet you don't support keeping them alive? Kinda getting bordering on double standards there.

With that, here's my answer....

I define what is alive in the context of abortion by what matches the closest definition of all functions to what humans outside of the womb can preform. What I refer to is...

The physiological definition of "alive" in that life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. A fetus within the first trimester does not meet all of these criteria.

The example you're referring to is biochemical. The term "biological" is not the recognized term. (Unless I'm missing something?) A biochemical or molecular biological definition sees living organisms as systems that contain reproducible hereditary information coded in nucleic acid molecules and that metabolize by controlling the rate of chemical reactions using the proteinaceous catalysts known as enzymes.

Even so, you add in a couple parameters such as the ability to kick and have a heartbeat.

Do you consider virus-like prions alive in this context?

are tumors made in the image of God?

And therein, lies the heart of the issue:

I don't believe in God. I have yet to see any morsel of evidence of their existence that can be held without scrutiny.

You're trying to push your religious convictions into the political sphere and restrict the liberties of others who do not follow your ideology by enacting religious law without establishing a state religion.

NaBrO. I'm just taking what I know to be true and then using it to give me some sense of morals. if you don't believe in God, then I can no longer help you. goodbye, happy belated independence day, and in God we trust.

Truth is not the same as a fact.

But it figures, once I've fully had a thorough discussion with you, I shined a light on some pretty heavy inconsistencies between faith, law, biology.

Once I dismantled your "scientific" approach, you moved the goal post to God. Once I dismantled that, you tap out.

Par the course.

Who's really indoctrinated here? The individual Blind faith, using bad faith arguments?

Or the one who sticks to the scientific method of classification in biology and sticks to that metric?

Nevermind that children put their children in church at birth. (Because that's not indoctrination.) In my house, we let our child decide if they want to be in church when they're 18 so they can make their own decision as an adult. That way, they don't have to suffer the slew of logical fallacies within the bible blindly.

you seem rather...I don't want to say arrogant.... confident. my scientific approach was ACTUALLY scientific. I gave you an actual scientific definition for life. I didn't want to type out that tumors can't detect changes in their environment and respond, so they aren't alive. I thought I'd say something that isn't made up by a committee. I really don't want to have a catastrophism vs uniformitarianism discussion (do you know what those are?) rn, but I can tell you this: the evidence strongly backs up Christianity. I'm happy for you that think you were "shining light." I'm gonna be honest. you actually didn't. I hope someday you'll come back to the actual light.

Sincerely a legend in the making.

I wasn't familiar with the two terms you mentioned. I looked them up and I knew the concepts, just didn't know the name for them. How are they relevant?

the evidence for Christianity......

Yeah... I think not.

you have the right to think whatever you want

Here's a TL;DR for this reply if you don't want to read it: The bible was written, transcribed, and translated by man. I'll take the comittee having their degrees in biology over someone who had a subjective religious experience that cannot be proven while also not holding any degrees in any of the sciences at the time of the Bible's creation.

I don't consider tumors living, but by the definition you provided that most matches your response, biochemical is the definition you use. Thus, a tumor matches those properties.

I don't subscribe to the definitions of a book that is claimed to be handed by God and is pure and holy. When, in fact, it has been passed on from church to church who already had power over the King. Mind you, that's assuming man resisted Satan every single time. I find that highly unlikely given how many times we've seen pedophiles in churches.

There's a lot to be said about the Bible. But to assume that your interpretation of God is correct, and to impose that on others who might have a different religion is the quintessence of arrogance.

The knack for Christianity to flex their double standards is something that never ceases to amaze me.

sigh...look up the definition for alive. I gave you a simplified definition. I actually do use the scientific definition of alive. and babies meet that let's go.

A fetus is not a baby.

You gave me a mishmash definition, a hybrid of the physiological definition and biochemical.

Literally cherry picked.

But assuming that your definition is a recognized definition, how do you justify that for people on life support with no brain activity?

are you arguing we should kill those people too? and I told you. simplified.

Even then, getting a tumor was God's will, by your belief. Why remove it and play god?

faith without action doesn't mean much

When I was a Christian, I recall hearing some lecture that even masturbation was an affront to God. This invalidates the popular Christian position of "Life at conception."

Faith without action. So, if God gives you the tools to care for yourself...
Satan invented the tools for abortion and not God? Kinda inconsistent there.

And, by extension, do you consider human semen "alive?"
Or, unfertilized embryos?
Because, they fit the definition of being biochemically alive.

> Continued thread (2)
"you have the right to think whatever you want"
As you have the right to believe in an invisible man who lives up in the sky who watches everything you do of every minute of every day. Who, created a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do. If you do any of these 10 things, he has a special place where he will put those so they can suffer and burn in fire and anguish and smoke until the end of time.... but he loves you.

He loves you and he needs money. All powerful, all knowing. Just can't handle money. Religion brings in billions every year, pay no taxes, and influence our politics and they always need a little more money...

You wanna hear a good bull shit story?

Holy shit.

thanks for giving me that right. as it is, He ain't a man. there's a lot more than ten things. He sent his Son down so that when I mess up He'll pay the price for me. and I've seen miracles happen bc of Him in my life. in fact, the only reason I'm alive is because of a legit miracle. and I'll let my light shine knowing who I out my faith in

If he isn't a man, why do you refer to him as "he"?
So, you partake in a religion that still upholds and values blood sacrifice?
I can see where the anti-liberty thing comes from. You perceive yourself as not having free will.
So, if you can just be safe knowing that he "sent [his?] son" to die for you. Why bother praying at all? Attending church? I know, it's because you're showing reverence and respect.
That door swings both ways though. You never asked. No one did who is currently alive.
Funny thing about free will and being safe from damnation by sin.

Nothing says guilt trip like sacrificing your son.
Nothing says jealousy like "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Meaning, when this was written, he acknowledges other Gods.
In a separate clause "Thou shalt not worship false idols." Which, clearly does not say Gods. Just idols.
Even funnier is that Jesus said "Do unto others." And a lot of Christians are showing that they prefer to dictate the lives of others (Roe) so perhaps maybe we should start laying law for religion and taxing them.
Tired of their religious zealotry interfering in the pursuit of happiness by others, pushing their beliefs onto others, taking religious covenant and stating it as fact.

Bunch of hypocrites, the lot of'em.

I mean, where else did the phrase "Practice what you preach" come from? Certainly not in a secular setting.

He says he is our heavenly Father. and no, have you read the part about the cross? yk that whole final sacrifice thing? bc Christ said, "if you love me keep my commandments." ie the Torah. ofc I have free will. that's why it's still hard.

So, as a gift, we were given the most impossible test to which we were bound to feel guilt and remorse...

Yeah, that's f**ked. Sadistic, even. Not even a gift, but more a trial, isn't that right? A trial to prove our love to this deity. Sounds like the biggest "Stroke my ego" campaign I've ever heard of.

As a parent, I could never condemn my child to an eternity of suffering.

* I have no idea why autocarrot put "out" there instead of "put"