this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
774 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4650 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Maybe so, but the war against abortion isn't based on religious texts. It was ginned up by pieces of shit who tied it to the bible artificially by painting a complex issue as a black and white case of "murder". Which is bullshit to anyone remotely understanding of reality.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It may not be directly tied to religious works. However, religion is being used to prop it up, as usual. I still agree that people can practice what they wish, though I'm beginning to feel strongly that religion is a plague and we'd be better off without it. Yet, I suppose, evil fools would just find something else to cower behind.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

That's pretty close to how I feel about it too.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

In religion's defense, many religions are also being used to prop up pro-choice. It just so happens 2 or 3 of the largest religions are very outspoken so the rest of them are getting ignored.

Stealing from Pew, almost all of Judaism, Universalism, and many of the major non-evangelical protestant religions are pro-choice. Even Islam is largely "limited pro-choice". If I had to guess, the majority of religions weighted by adherents are either morally pro-abortion-rights, or at least pro-choice due to lack of mandate otherwise.

...if we look back at the US Civil War, the Christian churches fell on both sides of the Slavery argument fairly consistently, basically based on what their constituents wanted to hear.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Most of religion isn't based on religious texts. The texts are just the marketing material. Once you're inside they're largely ignored.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If you insist on that, secular society is also a religion. As is regional atheism.

People don't hate abortion because they're afraid of God. They hate abortion because their parents and teachers taught them to. Yes, some religions help propogate societal behaviors, but they are not solely, or even primarily responsible for them.

Honestly, just look at the way Catholic Priests in conservative areas have been largely rejecting Rome on anything that isn't radically conservative despite claiming to inheret their morals from Rome. Or more starkly, just look at the undying history of sedevacantism.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Well I don't know about "most" but you've got a point

[–] Srh@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

They're wrong though. They pulled that shit out of their ass.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, with asterisks? The Catholics only get away with that because they reject Sola Scriptura, and sometimes treat some of the words of their Church Fathers as "the next best thing". Even then, they've gone back and forth on abortion (and largely treated it as a minor issue) until only the last few centuries.

...but along those lines, I've never really seen a Catholic argument against abortion try to lean too heavily on Biblical sources. Because they know they'd lose.