Fetus in fetu

[vector2]

I'm using the term "superiority" to only represent the dualing moral/ethical systems here. I am not attempting to trap you into saying you're superior or claim it for myself. Although I believe you can claim the superiority of a system without automatically saying that you the individual are superior.

In that vein, I think you must be claiming a "superiority" or authority for the naturalism here for which you've explained your rationalization for and I accept its reasonableness.

I was never really tallking about any individual here, but rather just systems. And again, let me be clear, my belief as a relativist is that there is no objectively "superior" ethical system, full stop. I merely laid out the salient differences between a secular and faith-based ethical system. Whether anyone thinks one is superior to the other (for the reasons outlined above) is a subjective value judgement.

I'm also having a bit of trouble as I'm not defending all theisms here, because while they have similar traits, they differ wildly from each other. Another reason I'm having trouble here is because much of naturalism's tenets were formed, or at least identified, by prominent Christians (St. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas). I have no issue with natural law because you are correct that we logically know the difference between "right" and "wrong."

On the contrary, I don't agree at all that we logically know the difference between right and wrong.

The differences in our perspectives I'll guess are 1) where does that moral come from, 2) Is it sufficient, and 3) who defines it? I don't think it is sufficient in of itself because it is limited only by our minds, it must come from somewhere and it cannot be proved to have simply evolved itself as an accident over time, and who determines what constitutes the body of naturalism? This last point is very important IMO because I don't know how a naturalist and a Catholic would differ on the initial issue on which this tangent grew from, or many other contentious issues such as homosexual marriage or even gender ideology. I'm just going to guess that some if not most naturalism proponents would disagree with the Catholic position on such issues, but who or what is to mediate infallibly or even with very high fidelity? Who is to say the Greco-Roman natural law is inferior to a jungle natural law where might makes right?

Precisely! Who is to say which natural law is "inferior" to the other?? That's the question that's plagued anthropologists, sociologists, theologians, and philosophers for centuries and millennia.

I'm pretty firmly of the belief that much of human behavior and most of our ethical norms are directly the product of evolution by natural selection. When you state that "it must come from somewhere," (which to me intimates a supernatural origin) that sounds more like a proclamation from your gut than an assertion supported by any evidence.

Prehistoric human beings thrived and multiplied due to our ability to 1. Engage in clever, abstract thought which allowed us to create useful things no animal had before 2. Cooperate in family units and in ever-increasingly large multi-family groups. Compassion, love, respect, patience, and not stealing from or wantonly murdering everyone are emotions and behaviors that can be selected for through naturalistic means. (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari is a pretty interesting read on this very topic)

But again we disagree because I see nothing wrong with systems of morality only being limited by our minds. And I think they are sufficient. Mostly because I think all systems of morality, even the purportedly divine ones, originated from the human mind as well. The latter simply said it was from a being greater than humans to add that extra layer of authority.

In this way I also find it hard to differentiate anyone who has an individual set of morals, be it a naturalism/materialism ethical code, another secular philosophy like nihilism, or a protestant who recognizes no authority other than their interpretation of the Bible. Any of them could claim to be "unfalsifiable" in your described sense above. And I want to stress that I'm making the comparison not dismissing your arguments above but rather to look at them from the perspective of an authority or arbiter or cohesive sense of order. Because while I agree with your premise of naturalism morals, I do not believe they are sufficient.

To be clear, I didn't say the ethical systems themselves were unfalsifiable. Indeed, a secular system of ethics (or for that matter, any set of ethics) has to be based on a set of value judgement axioms, and these axioms are not provable or unprovable like some mathematical proof.

What I said was that professions of faith or faith-based beliefs [involving theists / the supernatural] were unfalsifiable. The important corollary of this is that the value judgement axioms comprising a religious ethical system are frequently claimed to originate not from a human mind, but from a maybe omniscient omnipotent omnipresent deity whose existence is not empirically demonstrable and certainly not logically falsifiable. And that's where I have a problem.

To be very clear, it's not objectively superior to ascribe to secular axioms which originate solely from the human mind vs ascribing to axioms which are claimed to originate from God or Allah or Brahma or Zeus. I just subjectively think it's better if we all ascribed to the former because then I don't have to argue with someone who thinks the infallible literal creator of the universe wrote them a specific guide on how to comport themselves.

Lastly I want to address what you said about faith. It's been a large point in your discussions that I haven't really discussed yet and I've realized now that I had to make one of the points above to speak on it. Because Natural Law and reason are not opposed to teachings in the Catholic church faith is not needed in determining them. Faith concerns itself with what cannot be empirically reasoned or proved. It is present in that which is divinely revealed that fills in the knowledge gap. It's that part which gives authority and weight to natural law. Faith is not a carte blanche that can be used as a cudgel to justify fringe beliefs. And that's why I said that no legitimate religion or philosophy can claim as such.

The perspective you espouse is pretty specific to post-Aquinas Catholicism and indeed the attempt at reconciliation of reason and faith is certainly pretty ubiquitous in this group. But again, you only need to look at history to see how this sort of God of the Gaps view took hold as more naturalistic explanations for physical phenomena became increasingly common. "Reasonable" religion is nothing but a shifting goalpost in time, perpetually moving in the direction of more and more abstraction as secular culture/ethics and scientific advancement determine what is actually reasonable.

And as far as faith not being a cudgel that can be used to justify fringe beliefs....let me ask: 1. How exactly do you define a "fringe" belief? 2. Who is the authority that says my personal faith can't justly be used as such a cudgel?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I don't have a comprehensive definition of a fringe religious belief but they would generally follow the same formula of a minority novel or splinter faction with radically different beliefs/moralities/ethical code/etc than the norm. They can differ drastically on such things as authority (prophet with direct access to a diety) to methods (sacrifices, etc.) to participation requirements and so on. They could advocate for different values and ways to achieve them (violent vs passive). Examples range from the Branch Covidians mentioned above to Mormonism in the late 1800s to Early Christianity. The staying power and movement from fringe to established "faiths" would depend on a lot of factors including appeal for members, integration with other societies/cultures. It's ability to flourish is going to be how much it resonates with people across cultures. Christianity has had so much success because of its ability to do exactly that across cultures. The amount to which it causes conflict will be in how it's followers decide to interact with their neighbors. For your assertion that defining a "reasonableness" to a religion will result in shifting goalposts isn't true of the religion. Religions may have to adapt tenets to encompass new technologies and the like but established ones are more likely to stay consistent to their teachings. People outside a certain deviation of the bell curve may choose to accept it or not, but the teachings will stay consistent or the religion will cease to function as such. Again though, personal faith in a diety or in a secular moral code is not authority enough to excuse abnormal, harmful behavior, which has been my point that there is really no distinction between the such.

I'm going to reject the "god of the gaps" conclusion as its not a fair assessment of Christian thinking. Filling knowledge gaps with "god" is much different than acknowledging that there are knowable and unknowable things that exist. Those things have and will continue to change as science progresses. You speak of Nietzche when you reference the god of gaps theory, who's morals will lead all rational thought to nihilism. If one takes nihilism seriously, its really only a matter of time until suicidal ideation is that person's main struggle.

You mentioned that you are a relativist. Relativism is the ultimate example of shifting goalposts. Morals are whatever you can argue for from any given scenario. Sure you could make an argument that the mean or median is the correct one, but if you grant that to them (or even to yourself) then you must grant any fringe belief (whether a personal "faith-based" one or simply any offshoot of any secular moral system) the same rights.

You ideas are well articulated and make sense. I think overall you'd have a difficult time applying them to a population however and I can't see them as truly divorced from core Christian beliefs when you described some of the virtues above. Given that, I'd wonder how closely some of our views on the original topic and others both overlap and diverge and why.


** apologies for the late reply and jumbled formation of the reply. I've started and stopped multiple times. Life has been busy.

 

[Nephro critical care]

Near total bans, many with no exception for rape or incest. Those are policies which 75% of the American people disagree with. But let's keep pretending they're "moderate" lol

View attachment 367342

I for sure support ban on abortion in rape cases. Take Plan B for sure but no abortion. The baby is not at fault if mother was raped. Sorry folks I am just advocating for a life.

 

[anaesthetic]

I for sure support ban on abortion in rape cases. Take Plan B for sure but no abortion. The baby is not at fault if mother was raped. Sorry folks I am just advocating for a life.

Well, up until they’re born at least. Then they’re on their own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.

 

[2Fast2Des]

I for sure support ban on abortion in rape cases. Take Plan B for sure but no abortion. The baby is not at fault if mother was raped. Sorry folks I am just advocating for a life.

Yup, I'm sure you will definitely be there to advocate for the child born to a parent who may or cannot provide the best care they need. But minor details, you are advocating for them to exist! Who cares what happens after they are born?!

 

[TexBlazer2106]

Why are y'all accusing him/her of not caring about children?

 

[Nephro critical care]

After birth the child could be adopted if the mother does not want to take care of the baby. Many will still take care of their baby.

 

[Nephro critical care]

While some say life begins at conception I would give a little leeway and say abortion could be permitted up to 6 weeks / fetal heartbeat. Uptil that time the fetus is unlikely to really feel pain with an abortion. But after that the only justified reason to have an abortion is a risk to mother’s life or serious chromosomal abnormalities / anencephaly. A woman is not justified to take the life of a baby just because she is ’a woman‘ and thus has the right to terminate her unborn baby.

 

[2Fast2Des]

After birth the child could be adopted if the mother does not want to take care of the baby. Many will still take care of their baby.

Yes because the adoption process and foster care system in this country is so robust and efficient, kids are super happy in it as well

 

[patriot6]

Yes because the adoption process and foster care system in this country is so robust and efficient, kids are super happy in it as well

there's a surprisingly long list of families waiting to adopt. i put my money where my mouth is and give monetary support (and time) to the crisis pregnancy centers in my town. the "prolife until they're actually born" critique of the pro-life community is a partisan talking point. it's just one more poor justification meant to distract from the extremely ugly reality of the abortion industry in the united states.

 

[Nephro critical care]

We have 2 boys but would really like to have a girl as well to make our family complete. We tried IVF but it didn’t work and then my wife had breast CA and now a pregnancy would be unwise.

Then we thought of adopting but found its not very easy. We wanted a new born girl who we could be full parents but that was hard to find. Most kids who were available were older or had special needs and we already have a special needs child and were not in the position to take another.

 

[nimbus]

We have 2 boys but would really like to have a girl as well to make our family complete. We tried IVF but it didn’t work and then my wife had breast CA and now a pregnancy would be unwise.

Then we thought of adopting but found its not very easy. We wanted a new born girl who we could be full parents but that was hard to find. Most kids who were available were older or had special needs and we already have a special needs child and were not in the position to take another.

So it’s about you and your desires. Got it.

If you haven’t got the memo, all adoptees have special needs because they were ripped away from their actual family. If you truly care about a child, you should do everything in your power to enable them to remain with their mother. That means supporting the mother regardless of what you think of her.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

So it’s about you and your desires. Got it.

If you haven’t got the memo, all adoptees have special needs because they were ripped away from their actual family. If you truly care about a child, you should do everything in your power to enable them to remain with their mother. That means supporting the mother regardless of what you think of her.

Was he suggesting otherwise?

 

[chessknt]

While some say life begins at conception I would give a little leeway and say abortion could be permitted up to 6 weeks / fetal heartbeat. Uptil that time the fetus is unlikely to really feel pain with an abortion. But after that the only justified reason to have an abortion is a risk to mother’s life or serious chromosomal abnormalities / anencephaly. A woman is not justified to take the life of a baby just because she is ’a woman‘ and thus has the right to terminate her unborn baby.

You think a 7 week fetus can feel pain?

Is there any pregnancy that is not a risk to the mother's life? Pregnancy is one of the more dangerous medical conditions and given the issues around women getting appropriate healthcare any time it doesnt go right I wouldn't just blow off pregnancy as some benevolent condition.

Is preeclampsia enough of a reason? Cardiomyopathy? Gestational diabetes? Severe asthma? What about prior postpartum depression? Schizophrenia? Sickle cell anemia? PAH? Newly diagnosed breast cancer?

See how inserting your beliefs with vague qualifications creates confusion? Maybe we should just leave it up to the experts to make medical decisions with patients free of poorly worded nonsense written by politicians with less understanding of obstetrics than a kindergartner.

 

[TexBlazer2106]

You think a 7 week fetus can feel pain?

Is there any pregnancy that is not a risk to the mother's life? Pregnancy is one of the more dangerous medical conditions and given the issues around women getting appropriate healthcare any time it doesnt go right I wouldn't just blow off pregnancy as some benevolent condition.

Is preeclampsia enough of a reason? Cardiomyopathy? Gestational diabetes? Severe asthma? What about prior postpartum depression? Schizophrenia? Sickle cell anemia? PAH? Newly diagnosed breast cancer?

See how inserting your beliefs with vague qualifications creates confusion? Maybe we should just leave it up to the experts to make medical decisions with patients free of poorly worded nonsense written by politicians with less understanding of obstetrics than a kindergartner.

Great points and I agree increasing maternal care needs to be a priority. However, abortion results in the termination of a life and great care should be taken to give weight to that fact in each situation.

 

[Nephro critical care]

So it’s about you and your desires. Got it.

If you haven’t got the memo, all adoptees have special needs because they were ripped away from their actual family. If you truly care about a child, you should do everything in your power to enable them to remain with their mother. That means supporting the mother regardless of what you think of her.

So it’s about you and your desires. Got it.

If you haven’t got the memo, all adoptees have special needs because they were ripped away from their actual family. If you truly care about a child, you should do everything in your power to enable them to remain with their mother. That means supporting the mother regardless of what you think of her.

My intention is to convince a woman who just wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy to keep it till term. Once the baby is born we will adopt her and then bring her up in OUR social values in which she will learn to avoid circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancy such as out of / premartial marriage sex and then get married to a man that shares the same pro-life values so that they will value their children unlike what her mother was going to do.

 

[nimbus]

My intention is to convince a woman who just wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy to keep it till term. Once the baby is born we will adopt her and then bring her up in OUR social values in which she will learn to avoid circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancy such as out of / premartial marriage sex and then get married to a man that shares the same pro-life values so that they will value their children unlike what her mother was going to do.

You need to talk to some adult adoptees.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

My intention is to convince a woman who just wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy to keep it till term. Once the baby is born we will adopt her and then bring her up in OUR social values in which she will learn to avoid circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancy such as out of / premartial marriage sex and then get married to a man that shares the same pro-life values so that they will value their children unlike what her mother was going to do.

Like Lauren Boebert’s kid?

 

[vector2]

Like Lauren Boebert’s kid?

No.














Like Sarah Palin's kid.

 

[2Fast2Des]

My intention is to convince a woman who just wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy to keep it till term. Once the baby is born we will adopt her and then bring her up in OUR social values in which she will learn to avoid circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancy such as out of / premartial marriage sex and then get married to a man that shares the same pro-life values so that they will value their children unlike what her mother was going to do.

Oh dear, egad, premarital sex! Something Jesus and the Father will send you straight to hell for. The prophet Donald Trump I'm sure never did that!

 

[TexBlazer2106]

I don't understand the conversation about adoptees. I don't think any adoptee wants to be that. I'm sure they wished they were born into a whole family.

 

[UscGhost]

My intention is to convince a woman who just wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy to keep it till term. Once the baby is born we will adopt her and then bring her up in OUR social values in which she will learn to avoid circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancy such as out of / premartial marriage sex and then get married to a man that shares the same pro-life values so that they will value their children unlike what her mother was going to do.

So how many kids have you adopted?

Should we require all pro lifers to adopt?

What about all of those frozen embryos? Should we force people to get them implanted?

Ooo..maybe we start a government program of surrogates. Show up, get your embryo implanted and move along.

But then what about the kids at the border. Do we only care about fetuses? Or is it only American citizens? But then a fetus isn't a citizen yet..

What if their mom is an immigrant, do we force her to have the child and then kick her out of the country?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

But after that the only justified reason to have an abortion is a risk to mother’s life or serious chromosomal abnormalities / anencephaly.

How do you define "serious chromosomal abnormalities?" Trisomy 13? 18? 21? 21 with heterotaxy and an unbalanced AVCD? What about serious non-chromosomal congenital conditions? HLHS + CDH?

Otherwise, interesting philosophical discussions going in this thread. Keep it going.

 

[Nephro critical care]

How do you define "serious chromosomal abnormalities?" Trisomy 13? 18? 21? 21 with heterotaxy and an unbalanced AVCD? What about serious non-chromosomal congenital conditions? HLHS + CDH?

Otherwise, interesting philosophical discussions going in this thread. Keep it going.

We will use a little IQ/common sense to figure out appropriate grounds for pregnancy termination. Personally any chromosomal abnormalities (even trisomy 21) can be aborted. These kids will likely be dependent for all their life and its not fair to expect parents to carry these to term. Let them try again for a healthy baby. But no grounds for terminating any healthy embryo after 6 weeks/heartbeat detection.

 

[patriot6]

We will use a little IQ/common sense to figure out appropriate grounds for pregnancy termination. Personally any chromosomal abnormalities (even trisomy 21) can be aborted. These kids will likely be dependent for all their life and its not fair to expect parents to carry these to term. Let them try again for a healthy baby. But no grounds for terminating any healthy embryo after 6 weeks/heartbeat detection.

oh snap, didn't expect that.
i'm generally not a fan of these arbitrary lines in the sand.

while there can be obviously complex situations, please don't get too caught up on it. the vast majority of abortions in the country are done on healthy babies. the heated discussion regarding the ethics of the <2% of the abortions (rape, abnormalities, etc) is interesting, but not the point.

 

[Nephro critical care]

oh snap, didn't expect that.
i'm generally not a fan of these arbitrary lines in the sand.

while there can be obviously complex situations, please don't get too caught up on it. the vast majority of abortions in the country are done on healthy babies. the heated discussion regarding the ethics of the <2% of the abortions (rape, abnormalities, etc) is interesting, but not the point.

My own feeling is that life begins at conception but probably the fetus is unlikely to feel pain very early on.
I am not a fan of trying to keep an anencephalic baby alive by all means even if parents insist on it. I was all for Great Ormond Street Hospital in their battle with Charlie Gard’s parents. That child had no possible chance of surviving without machines.
But for a healthy embryo ; if conceived has to be carried to birth.

 

[Nephro critical care]

Oh dear, egad, premarital sex! Something Jesus and the Father will send you straight to hell for. The prophet Donald Trump I'm sure never did that!

Donald Trump may or may now have erred earlier in his life but what happened / happened its in the past. Stormy Daniels is in any case not worth a dime. Right now the indictment against him is politically motivated and his followers see through the democ 'rats' lies. Next time he will be the president with more than 100 million votes.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Donald Trump may or may now have erred earlier in his life but what happened / happened its in the past. Stormy Daniels is in any case not worth a dime. Right now the indictment against him is politically motivated and his followers see through the democ 'rats' lies. Next time he will be the president with more than 100 million votes.

You do know that he has 30+ counts against him for business fraud, etc - right?

 

[Nephro critical care]

You do know that he has 30+ counts against him for business fraud, etc - right?

I have not heard where he is being prosecuted for corruption etc. Election interference / January 6 are all politically motivated. Trump made a mistake 2 years ago when he told his followers to leave the Capitol. They should have stayed put. He should never have given in to Pelosi.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Election interference / January 6 are all politically motivated.

I mean what else could it be when he asked the guy in Georgia to “find” him just enough votes to win the election by a single vote.

 

[nimbus]

Donald Trump may or may now have erred earlier in his life but what happened / happened its in the past. Stormy Daniels is in any case not worth a dime. Right now the indictment against him is politically motivated and his followers see through the democ 'rats' lies. Next time he will be the president with more than 100 million votes.

I never thought in a million years that Trump could have been elected the first time so maybe this is possible.

 

[2Fast2Des]

I never thought in a million years that Trump could have been elected the first time so maybe this is possible.

I think Trump represents what America is truly about. His ideals represent what people kept hidden beneath the surface, and he made it okay to say whatever they were thinking without any recourse. Hence his ability to do and say whatever that would have sunk careers for any previous politician in history, is actually elevating him and making him more popular in the most upside down world way possible. America will get what it deserves, unfortunately the normal people like us have to suffer the fate what the deplorables want.

 

[UscGhost]

I think Trump represents what America is truly about. His ideals represent what people kept hidden beneath the surface, and he made it okay to say whatever they were thinking without any recourse. Hence his ability to do and say whatever that would have sunk careers for any previous politician in history, is actually elevating him and making him more popular in the most upside down world way possible. America will get what it deserves, unfortunately the normal people like us have to suffer the fate what the deplorables want.

Well it's the oldest trick in the book. Nationalism and xenophobia will win you many elections. It relies on the ignorance of the masses.

Downside is that it's generally pretty terrible for the country in the long run.

If you spend all your energy on fictional problems, then you won't have any time for the real problems

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I have not heard where he is being prosecuted for corruption etc. Election interference / January 6 are all politically motivated. Trump made a mistake 2 years ago when he told his followers to leave the Capitol. They should have stayed put. He should never have given in to Pelosi.

That's some grade C trolling at best.

 

[Nephro critical care]

That's some grade C trolling at best.

We reserve to use the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment to preserve our 1st amendment rights.

 

[MirrorTodd]

We reserve to use the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment to preserve our 1st amendment rights.

Congratulations, you are a traitor to your country -signed a US Servicemember

 

[pgg]

While some say life begins at conception I would give a little leeway and say abortion could be permitted up to 6 weeks / fetal heartbeat. Uptil that time the fetus is unlikely to really feel pain with an abortion.

"unlikely"? What on earth does the fetal heartbeat have to do with pain perception?

My own feeling is that life begins at conception but probably the fetus is unlikely to feel pain very early on.

Again, "unlikely"?



The anatomic and physiologic and neurochemical basis for things like pain and consciousness have been understood for decades: cortex doesn't even start differentiating into layers capable of any of that, and synapses don't start forming and organizing until week 18-20 or thereabouts.

If "feels pain" is part of your opposition to abortion prior to 20 weeks, you need to reconsider.

 

[pgg]

After birth the child could be adopted if the mother does not want to take care of the baby. Many will still take care of their baby.

I think you're dramatically overestimating the market for adopting babies born with disabilities or a little bit of melanin.

And that's right now, when abortion is legal and the numbers given up for adoption are low.

 

[Nephro critical care]

Congratulations, you are a traitor to your country -signed a US Servicemember

What about the athletes who kneel at the US anthem. Are they not traitors as well ? Why is it us ?

 

[MirrorTodd]

What about the athletes who kneel at the US anthem. Are they not traitors as well ? Why is it us ?

My dude you are openly advocating for the disruption of our election process and the continuation of an attempted coup. As far as I know, there is no federal or state law that says you have to stand with your heart over your hand when the national anthem is played before a sports event or any event for that matter. Do you REALLY not see the difference?

 

[pgg]

We reserve to use the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment to preserve our 1st amendment rights.

What 1st Amendment rights do you think are being infringed?

 

[Nephro critical care]

What 1st Amendment rights do you think are being infringed?

Freedom of speech / free exercise of religion.

 

[Nephro critical care]

My dude you are openly advocating for the disruption of our election process and the continuation of an attempted coup. As far as I know, there is no federal or state law that says you have to stand with your heart over your hand when the national anthem is played before a sports event or any event for that matter. Do you REALLY not see the difference?

We pay for the Capitol. Ashli Babitt had as much right to it as Pelosi did. No one talks about how she was murdered in cold blood.

 

[nimbus]

We reserve to use the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment to preserve our 1st amendment rights.

2A and 1A are for everyone. At least the trans folks aren’t crying about censorship.

Gun-toting transgender woman backing 'day of vengeance' is ex-SOLDIER

Kayla Denker posted a video of herself with an assault rifle after the Nashville school shooting, and has become one of the most high-profile militant trans activists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Twitter removes tweets about ‘Trans Day of Vengeance’

Twitter says it has removed thousands of tweets showing a poster promoting a “trans day of vengeance” protest in support of transgender rights in Washington, D.C., on Saturday.

thehill.com

 

[pgg]

Freedom of speech / free exercise of religion.

Who's stopping you?

Where?

Honestly curious how and where you're being prevented from speaking or practicing your religion.

 

[Nephro critical care]

I feel abortion / promoting LGBTQ culture is against my religion. Nowadays people speaking out for their religious beliefs are immediately cancelled.

 

[pgg]

I feel abortion / promoting LGBTQ culture is against my religion. Nowadays people speaking out for their religious beliefs are immediately cancelled.

It appears you have no idea what the 1st Amendment actually means.

Other citizens or businesses laughing at you, ostracizing you, or refusing to do business with you because of the things you say isn't a violation of your 1st Amendment rights.

Other citizens or businesses refusing to publish or repeat your words aren't violating your 1st Amendment rights.

If you want to argue that cancel culture, perhaps defined as people or businesses refusing to deal with or acknowledge someone who says/does things they disagree with, is a counterproductive or ignorant overreaction, maybe we can find some common ground.


But complaining that being "cancelled" is a violation of your Constitutional rights - man, you sure say a lot of dumb stuff here, but that's near the top.

 

[Slack3r]

I feel abortion / promoting LGBTQ culture is against my religion. Nowadays people speaking out for their religious beliefs are immediately cancelled.

This has to be an elaborate troll account

 

[2Fast2Des]

This has to be an elaborate troll account

Or not... I've met many talented and well regarded physicians who subscribe to this nutty viewpoint(s). It's mind boggling really, they're so smart yet don't use their brain when it comes to common sense.

 

[vector2]

Or not... I've met many talented and well regarded physicians who subscribe to this nutty viewpoint(s). It's mind boggling really, they're so smart yet don't use their brain when it comes to common sense.

Just grade A evidence that you can be a physician and still be dumb AF, like mouth breathing can't tie your shoes dumb, in all things non-medicine related.