Originally posted by Bashar Teg
1st amendment gives us the right to not live under theocratic law, and a zygote is not a person; despite what some cult-leader white mages and their supplicants assert about souls entering an embryonic cell at the moment of conception. oh well 🙂
Are you really going to tell pro-life atheists that their concerns violate the first amendment because predominantly religious people agree with them? Seems like a pretty slimy thing to do man.
This is not an establishment of religion when a variety people of various faiths and people without faiths hold this position in common.
This is quite frankly a very weak dishonest argument and one that could be weaponized against any position so long as anyone argued for the position on theological grounds.
The bar for an establishment of religion is higher than "some religious people want it for religious reasons" you ****ing moron.
Originally posted by cdtm
Even if a soul did, and we can prove it did, there's nothing in law about granting human rights based on a soul.
Nice word salad. And yet I am correct. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. your "winning" argument of "some athiests believe" is pure fallacious horseshit. And you have the nerve to suggest I'm being deceptive. Go stress-eat a bucket of kfc and cry into your waifu pillow, fatty.
Is that why 90% of the time I've seen someone religious or atheist argue the pro-life position, they've never cited the Bible or religious text?
I don't think not terminating human life is a uniquely theological position. You don't have to cite to some holy text to stake up that position.
And it's not just "a few atheists" there are legitimate secular pro-life organizations.
You have to actually prove it is uniquely an establishment of religion other than "predominantly religious people want it," otherwise we could just itso facto rule out any position so long as it was disproportionately religious who were in favor of it, which frankly sounds tyrannical and undemocratic.
And my apologies for calling you a liar, I honestly now think you're just that retarded.
Also to be fair to the pro-choice people, just as most pro-life people I've talked to don't rely on an appeal to the authority of God, most pro-choice people I've talked to don't make this same backwards ass argument that Bashar is making. Patientleech (ha spelled it right this time) despite his visceral contempt for religion and his pro-life stance is too intelligent and honest to try and peddle that kinda horseshit.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Is that why 90% of the time I've seen someone religious or atheist argue the pro-life position, they've never cited the Bible or religious text?I don't think not terminating human life is a uniquely theological position. You don't have to cite to some holy text to stake up that position.
And it's not just "a few atheists" there are legitimate secular pro-life organizations.
You have to actually prove it is uniquely an establishment of religion other than "predominantly religious people want it," otherwise we could just itso facto rule out any position so long as it was disproportionately religious who were in favor of it, which frankly sounds tyrannical and undemocratic.
And my apologies for calling you a liar, I honestly now think you're just that retarded.
Are you suggesting retards can't lie? Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no answer? that's okay, nobody cares. I was just curious about what drives something like you to continue their worthless existence
Just pretend you got the answer you wanted and make bellieve its real....like you always do.
Originally posted by cdtm
What law says a soul is proof of humanity?
"THEY" have been degrading human value for quite a long time now.