SCOTUS has a tier system for religious liberty: Fundamentalist Christians, and everyone else.

>I'm jewish

We know

Oy vey! That's violent antisemitism! Call the ADL!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, I highly doubt that.

Secondly, it's not about religion. It's about guaranteeing that all people, born and unborn, have an equal right to life

“Unborn person” is an oxymoron. A person is not a person until they’re born. Anti-abortion laws don’t change that.

Don’t believe me? Try claiming a fetus as a dependent on your IRS filings. Or try taking out a life insurance policy on it. Or try ordering a pregnant woman not to serve in the armed forces on the basis that children can’t serve. Or try applying for U.S. citizenship on the basis you were conceived in America even if you were not born here. Or a million other things.

What's your reasoning? All those "examples" you provided don't negate my position. You can defend someone's right to life without giving them every imaginable social privilege. Er gradually gain other rights as we get older, but the basic right to live is not one of them.

*we... Don't know why I typed "Er"

No, we don’t have to give fetuses real rights. We didn’t “have to” give black people rights. We didn’t “have to” give women rights. We were able to run our country for quite awhile just letting these groups of people have a “right-to-life” (so to speak) without any say about their own futures.

I have only raised a few indications of how the “pro-life” movement is unserious, unworkable, inhumane, flies in the face of America’s libertarian/civil rights DNA, and will collapse under the weight of these contradictions just like Prohibition did 100 years ago. All we’ll have to endure in the meantime is a lot of pointless, self-inflicted misery.

That’s my prediction anyway — we’ll see!

That image is a red herring.

Of course not. But those people who denied them rights were wrong, just as those people who sent rights to the unborn are wrong. (Ironically, it was Democrats doing it all 3 times...)

What are you getting on about? Like I said before, giving unborn people the basic right to live doesn't mean giving them every imaginable social privelege. Your "contradictions" are ridiculous. That's like saying"since 9 year olds can't vote, therefore it's okay to kill them." It just doesn't make sense.

Prohibition is a completely different issue.

Lol I never said we can kill 9-year-olds. Killing a person is murder. Personhood begins at birth.

You actually (no strawmanning) want to subject 9-year-old girls to laws that would force them to give birth to the children of rapists against their will, while giving them no political voice that they could use to change those laws.

If a girl is old enough to be forced by the state to give birth to a rapist’s baby, and then be expected to care for it with little to no assistance, then she’s sure old enough to fill in a few bubbles on a ballot once every 2-4 years.

We lowered the voting age from 21 years to 18 years in the wake of the Vietnam War for a similar reason. Old enough to be drafted? Old enough to vote.

Lower the voting age to 9 — at least. (The youngest birth ever recorded was to a 5-year-old. Father never ID’d.)

LOL you don't understand. What I was saying is that just because we don't give someone certain social privileges doesn't mean we get to kill them.

Why do you think that? After all, that's not when it's life begins. So you must have some other reason.

Rape is an evil that must be stopped, but so is abortion. We can't answer violence with more violence. But that still is a strawman, since the vast, vast majority of abortions are elective and not a result of rape.

And the great thing about it is, you are free to practice your religion and say things like this in America. That you don’t agree with their rulings just shows you have an opinion. Having an opinion does not make it a factual statement

Having a religion-based opinion about when life begins is perfectly fine and valid, as applied to yourself and your own decisions.

Problem is when you take what’s in your Holy Book and try to boss others around with it. That’s the essence not of religious freedom, but of religious tyranny.

Perhaps try Israel? The Jewish ethnostate.

Nah I’ll stay right here in America which was conceived as non-denominational and open to all.

So not Jewish? Yep, thanks, your point is nullified.

I’m not sure you understand how it works here in America, so let me explain.

—You can be Christian in America.
—You can be Jewish in America.
—You can be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other faith in America.
—You can be Atheist, Agnostic, completely apathetic, or any other kind of non-believer in America.
—The state will not establish a religion or attempt to convert you.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. You?