Coreece

That is the view of Secular Prolife, aka 'not a religious thing' Go get all indignant on them.

The secular view IS the 'religious view': https://secularprolife.org/abortion/ A Secular Case Against Abortion Summary: 1. The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms; they are early developmental stages of a human’s life cycle. 2. All human organisms are morally relevant. 3. It’s generally immoral to kill humans. 4. Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion. Part 1: The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms. “Life begins at fertilization” is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being’s life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide. Read more: Human beings begin as zygotes: refutations to 8 common pro-choice arguments Even very pro-choice biologists acknowledge a human life begins at fertilization The zygote is the beginning of the human life cycle: everyday examples Click here to see images from biology textbooks Corner cases and unusual biological phenomenon do not change the fact that the zygote is the first stage of a human’s life cycle. Here are some common objections we have addressed: On miscarriage: Nearly half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant Monozygotic twinning: Weasley brothers, flatworms, and cow clones Hydatidiform moles and molar pregnancies Part 2: All human organisms are morally relevant. Many pro-choice people acknowledge that, biologically, life begins at conception but deny zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are “people,” i.e. morally relevant humans deserving of human rights. They offer a variety of ideas about what additional criteria are necessary. Common suggestions include that the child must have a heartbeat, have brain waves, be viable, or be “conscious”/self-aware. We find these criteria for “personhood” arbitrary. Many of the proposed criteria would, if applied consistently, deny personhood to already born groups of humans we universally recognize as morally relevant and worthy of protection, such as newborns, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. We believe consistency demands that we protect all humans as morally relevant and members of our species. Read more: Personhood based on human cognitive abilities Why viability is the least plausible definition of personhood (Equal Rights Institute) The most undervalued argument in the prolife movement (Equal Rights Institute) Arguments against fetal personhood Part 3: It’s generally immoral to kill humans. In our experience, people may have different ideas about why it’s generally immoral to kill humans, but few if any people sincerely debate whether it’s generally immoral to kill humans. As a matter of policy, we at Secular Pro-Life do not take a stance on the metaphysical questions regarding where morality comes from or why we should care about one another. We simply ask that all people who believe, as a baseline premise, that it’s wrong to kill each other apply that stance consistently and recognize preborn children as part of the human family. For more details, read The Imago Dei, or “Why should secularists care about human life?” Part 4: Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion. Some pro-choice people argue that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is morally valuable “person,” because no person can use another’s body against her will. We believe this bodily rights argument is one of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and we encourage all people interested in the abortion debate to lean into this conversation. Still, we find that the bodily rights argument is not enough to justify elective abortion. Examples involving organ donation, car crashes, and other illustrations of bodily rights are disanalogous to pregnancy and abortion in one or more major ways. Read more: McFall v. Shimp and Thomson’s violinist don’t justify the vast majority of abortions. “Fewer rights than a corpse” rebutted Autumn in the Sovereign Zone: Why “it’s my body, I can do what I want” won’t do (Equal Rights Institute) De facto guardian and abortion: a response to the strongest violinist (Justice For All) Other bodily rights articles (Equal Rights Institute) Do doubt about that: Mission and Vision Our Mission Our mission in three parts: Advance secular arguments against abortion; Create space for atheists, agnostics, and other secularists interested in anti-abortion work; and Build interfaith coalitions of people interested in advancing secular arguments. Please note that our mission does not include advancing arguments for an atheistic worldview. Religious debates undermine our goal of building interfaith coalitions and distract from our focus on fighting abortion. Therefore, as a matter of organizational policy, Secular Pro-Life does not engage in religious debates. Our Vision We envision a world in which (1) people of all faith traditions, political philosophies, socioeconomic statuses, sexualities, races, and age groups oppose abortion; (2) men and women have and embrace control over whether they conceive children; and (3) society fully supports expectant parents, growing families, and children born and unborn.

How much time do you have? Ok, so you were messing with me, right? Good one.

What about it Jerry?

You're welcome.

Your Words: "Tell me about all the Christian values and how they form the core of the Republican Party policies." That's how. I thought it was obvious how the 2nd amendment is a political issue rather than a religious one. There you go again "seems like this, seems like that. . ." I mean damn dude, you selectively remove the words "their body, their choice" and then say it seems like I'm obsessed with removing that right? This is the crap I'm talking about. What's wrong with you?

Hi Coreece, Re: there might still be property taxes Based upon what I have read over the last 50 yrs; I ask that you show me one instance of this. Just askin'. Jerry Baumchen Not really sure why I kept thinking that. There may have been something I read about places of residence like convents or rectories, but like I said I'm not really sure. That's not really the part I'm interested in anyway, so I'll just concede that point.

It's a political issue that religious people engage, just like any other political issue. If you ask a religious pro lifer about abortion, their answers won't be very different from that of secular prolife: https://secularprolife.org/abortion/ Abortion isn't just a "christian issue," it's a humanity issue and there will always be politicians trying to use this stuff to their advantage. Practically every conservative here has explained in one way or another how they feel compelled (perhaps morally?) to be pro-choice regardless of how anti-abortion they are. Their body, their choice. There - changes nothing.

Ok, let's start with abortion. How is the abortion issue strictly a christian issue?

I don't think it's stupid, I knew exactly what you're doing - it helps. I also like to see how people add their own personal touch to things. I totally understood what she was doing. I've ran into this issue with you as well, but I'm notorious for being misunderstood (my fault) so I never gave it much thought - figured it a generational issue. No biggie it's just interesting to me how we perceive things differently.

The in-coming planet killer asteroid is God's Will, who are you to destroy it!

Like I said, all you have to do is get past me. I have all the incriminating evidence. Not sure if this is legal or not, but I can sell the videos for about $3.5 million, you get to destroy a church and prove to the world whatever point it is that makes you so happy. Then I can buy back the church and continue business as usual. Ok, you drive a hard bargain - your silence is killing me. $4 million, no politics (except in locations outside of church and preferably marked with a fish)

Like I said, all you have to do is get past me. I have all the incriminating evidence. Not sure if this is legal or not, but I can sell the videos for about $3.5 million, you get to destroy a church and prove to the world whatever point it is that makes you so happy. Then I can buy back the church and continue business as usual.

Understood, but Phil's complaining about about their political influence in Church. Taxing isn't going to stop that, it encourages it.

The argument would be that taxes not paid by some are made up elsewhere to provide services all use, including the Church. They don't have their own roads, cops and fire departments, right? I thought we were talking about them having politicians giving speeches. But in general, there might still be property taxes, not really sure how it all varies. Treat it like other non profits in similar categories. But still, how does any of this solve whatever it is exactly Phil's complaining about, even if churches do get penalized and lose their tax exempt status?

We were all liable for taxes, just not the church/school/housing stuff - and no, you're not really paying for the church, you're just not making money off it - not sure if they ever got some government cheese for the school or housing, but nothing wrong with that part even if they did. I guess you have a case against them for the political speeches if you want, but you'll probably have to try and get past me first.

They have also lived with corrupt politicians since forever, house people, build schools and create jobs. They know what's best for their community. And that is just one African American family that started all this.

Right, if you don't wanna be taxed you can't do that at church, that's what home study groups are for. But ok, let's say they get penalized. You get your money and revenge, but how does that really change anything else? They still get to keep doing what they're doing and now that they're paying taxes, they'll have even more political clout doing it - legally. Go Phil! From your article: I worked for a predominately democrat, African American church in Detroit and they would actually have candidates giving political speeches right from the pulpit. . . . . .they probably still do. I think I even have video evidence on a hard drive somewhere. Are you still bloodthirsty enough to get you some vengeance? 1. Yes, pastors can personally do that in this country, just not at church unless they pay a fee. 2. Biden won the 2020 election.

Yup, I don't want to get shot by some raging American zealot in a parking lot. Much safer to let it all hang out here. At the same time, it shouldn't be ignored that specifying things like this does help provide some context and perspective of where you're coming from.

You may be, I am not. Right, you can't afford to see it.

Yup, I don't want to get shot by some raging American zealot in a parking lot. Much safer to let it all hang out here. So I guess we're back to the thugs in chicago analogy again.

But that would be rude. So It's rude to push back against the ones actually telling you to go to hell, so you push back against the ones that aren't? Most of the time it's just people complaining about stories they see in their news feeds and coming in here to find a villain to pin it on. Just like Phil when he was going on about Winsor being scared of them taking his bibles, lol.

Solution: Increasing the price of guns to $100,000 dollars a piece with a 16 year waiting period. Or Diplomas sold out of the trunk in a dark alley.

I can totally see you driving through the Bible Belt talking shit and everyone shouting 'go to hell' in their CB radios, lol. But the people here have nothing to do with that, push back on those that are actually telling you to go to hell on their CB radio rather than taking it out on everyone else that's not. Besides everyone justifies their own evil with some excuse about how they've been wronged.

Since we're on the subject, I was also under the impression that we would need 5-10 years notice to have a chance at deflecting a 'planet killer' slightly off course enough to miss. Stuff like that could likely be done without much push-back from the public, if they even knew about it. They already sent a rocket up about a month ago to test it all out. https://www.nationalworld.com/news/nasa-dart-mission-spacecraft-launched-onboard-spacex-rocket-how-will-plan-to-crash-into-asteroids-work-3468161 https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart