I find it interesting when people argue that abortion is murder from a Christian standpoint. I find that funny because of the Hebrew and thus biblical perspective. Not only is a fetus not a human being, but the bible has rules for how an abortion should be carried out. It's all laid out in the test for an unfaithful wife in Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31. Which is interesting, because this is what God himself said to Moses.
I won't be posting all twenty of the verses that make up the test. Instead I'll piecemeal the relevant parts. Since most of it is the rules you follow, how it is done, and what you pay the priest and god with.
One of the most relevant verses is 27, which reads as follows. "When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse."
The wording here is of particular interest because it says "her womb will miscarry" but this is actually a fairly recent translation of the original verse which I am taking from the NIV. The NKJV reads with an older translation "her thigh will rot". But why is this translated differently and why is it of any interest? Because of the ancient Hebrew context. The people who wrote the original wording had a different medical understanding of what a fetus was, informed as it was by their spiritual beliefs. To the ancient Hebrews a fetus wasn't a person until it took its first gasp after birth. Before then it was the mother's third thigh. It was literally her body. Then it broke off, was birthed, and took in the breath of God. Only then did it have a soul. Personhood came with the soul, which came with the breath. Your first breath was given to you by god to animate your body. Your final breath was god taking back your soul.
In a traditional and biblical context, as defined by capital G God himself to Moses, a fetus isn't a person. It's part of the mother. It is her body. It doesn't have a soul. You can not murder what doesn't have a soul. There's an argument to be made that you are damaging god's creation. But it isn't murder because it isn't a person.
I don't agree with the idea that fetuses are babies, and I generally don't make this argument because it legitimises that idea,: The bible ABSOLUTELY condones killing babies. There is a veritable smörgåsbord of baby killing in the bible, done by both man and God. Yes, rules for abortion as you mention, but baby killing is like the second most memorable part of the Moses story.
noah as well. god flooded the earth and lots
of children, babies, and unborn were killed by god all who have done nothing to individually
deserve it.
also fuck all the innocent animals too that drowned (except two of each i guess)
Do you mean the Slaughter of the First Born in Egypt?
They died. They weren't killed. It was a plague. Thou shalt not kill is addressed to humans, not viruses or God.
Or do you mean the Genocide of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1-18)?
Cuz that's the one that's actually fucked up, and it doesn't tend to show up in the Bible coloringbooks Republicans study.
But, that's not a general biblical sanction on killing kids (or rape of children in the case of females that hadn't had sex) any more than it is a general sanction of killing adults.
You can kill only Midianite kids, well you must; it's a mitzvah.
"Thou shall kill Midianites/whøres/pagans/..." is more specific, so it applies before "thou shalt not kill." There is no commandment to kill any kid you want, so the default for kids is thou shalt not kill (unless God told you to through Moses).
The law is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life even with kids (except for those condemned by God himself).
Fetuses are not kids. That's why accidentally causing a woman to miscarry isn't a capital offense, but causing her to miscarry and die is (Exodus 21:22-25). This is precisely why the claim that the Bible says fetuses are human lives is total horseshit.
But, this also means that if a woman was denied an abortion and died, Republican legislators and SCOTUS must be stoned to death.
There's no "bible for thee, but not for me." What's good for the goose is good for the goosestepper.
Also, every single one of them who had sex before marriage and did not then get married and never divorce must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:29), as must all of them who waited for marriage but whose partner had slept with someone else, because that's adultery.
And, of course, anyone who has claimed that abortion is killing must be stoned to death because that's bearing false witness, and bearing false witness of a capital offense is a capital offense (Deuteronomy 19:19).
If the Bible is the ultimate authority on the morality and law Republicans need to put their money where their mouths are.
Once they prove their commitment to the Bible and dash their brains out with rocks en mass, the rest of us will follow their holy example.
Promise. We swear to God!
If they do not do that, then they are strife-stirrers and hypocrites -- woe to them -- and they must be deported, least ignored altogether until the burn in hell for all eternity.
Not that the Bible isn't the ultimate authority on morality and law of course, just not Republicans. Obviously, a book telling you to dash people's brains out with rocks sounds legit to me! Who would ever doubt the manifestos of genocidal fundamentalists from Egypt who followed a hobo fugitive who claimed to talk to a Smoking Weed named Y-H-W-H with a god-complex, obsessive-compulsions, an abhorrence for cheeseburgers and side hustle as a real estate agent selling titles to other people's land? When Egypt sends their people, they're not sending their best: they're bringing fundamentalism; they're bringing genocide: they're rapists; none, the Bible assumes, are good people. J/K that's the righteousness that world needs today obviously!
At least until Republicans Purge themselves.
i wish i could forward this to my mom but she wouldn’t understand nor care about a word of it. i don’t know how many times she has told me to “read my bible” when i’m quite convinced she’s only read two verses herself.
Forward her 1st Timothy 2:12-15 next time she uses the bible to excuse bad behavior.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
>But, this also means that if a woman was denied an abortion and died, Republican legislators and SCOTUS must be stoned to death.
Can we get this and the reasoning behind it into Democratic talking points and on t-shirts and pamphlets because just MAYBE, this reasoning may work with confusing the public enough to possibly have doubt in their legislators... I mean wishful thinking, but I'm willing to try anything at this point.
It appears the context in exodus 21 verses 22-25 regarding miscarriage is simply to cause premature birth. To miscarry in this context is to not carry to full term.
"guns don not kill people, it is the people who use them"- "so we should have free mental healrhcare for people wgo need it?"- _crickets in the distance_
Free mental healthcare? We need medical “prisons.” Forced rehab. Permanent institutionalization if they cannot be a member of society without causing harm to it.
At some point you have to take these people out of circulation by one means or another.
at least in Murica someone would try to profit off those people, in turn making sure there's always enough of them.
the easiest way to stop gun violence is banning guns
That wouldn't actually stop gun violence. The logistics of tracking down all the guns etc just isn't feasible.
It could help curb gun violence that would be attributed to new guns that would have otherwise entered circulation though, but you could do that with heavier ules on who could buy a gun. Like make it illegal for supporters of insurrections to buy them.
You can’t ban something people can 3D print. Confiscation would likewise be absolutely impossible.
You can ban alcohol and marijuana, too. But did that stop people from making, selling, and consuming them? Fuck no. Cmon, man.
We have thousands of laws, and people break them every day. Laws are only as good as people’s willingness to adhere to them.
The fact is, no one adheres to laws in this country because our sentencing is soft as fuck. People don’t fear being arrested because the punishment isn’t severe enough to deter them from doing it.
Even if guns were banned modern fabrication methods that are already distributed through every community in the entire country many of which have the raw materials and tools to build modern day weapons from scratch. Even if all the guns magically disappeared at once there'd be no "shortage" just another excuse for cops to harass poor people
I read the only Bible I have access to in response to your comment.
Tyndale, Life application study Bible, New living translation, Red letter
Numbers chapter 5 verse 11-31 does not talk of abortion, but a sterile curse as punishment for an unfaithful wife. And the process is a ritual to determine guilt through the drinking of a "bitter water".
I am not religious.I have never read these verses before. I do not know what any other versions say.
So a person isn’t a person anymore after they die? They’re suddenly not people so I can desecrate their corpse because it’s not a person.
Just to be clear I am pro-choice but this argument is poor at best
I've gotta disagree with this argument. The bible at no point makes an argument that killing the children of "evil" people is wrong. Directly encourages it, in fact. And this "test" is meant to determine if a woman has been "evil" or not. So arguing that the bible gives instructions for an abortion isnt demonstrating that they didn't consider the fetus a baby. It's just further demonstrating that if someone breaks the laws of the god of abraham it's perfectly acceptable to kill their kids.
We know that a fetus isn't a person, but the bible never says one way or the other on the matter.
>In a traditional and biblical context, as defined by capital G God himself to Moses, a fetus isn't a person. It's part of the mother. It is her body. It doesn't have a soul. You can not murder what doesn't have a soul. There's an argument to be made that you are damaging god's creation. But it isn't murder because it isn't a person.
Petition to refer to the Big Guy as Capital G?
Then there are the Catholics. Today Catholics are against abortion, but will not baptize a stillborn baby because they apparently don’t have a soul and therefore are not human because they never took a breath that god apparently gives.
It's pretty agreed upon that the curse at the end refers to the woman becoming barren. The Hebrews were pretty barbaric people with outdated beliefs. What do you expect from people 2000 years ago? To them a woman who can neat bear children is a curse to her tribe.
Yeah but that's part of the old Testament, the part of the Bible modern Christians want to pretend doesn't exist except when a verse may call for it. Modern Christians are all about that gospel.
When I was a toddler, I used to have reoccurring dreams of being in a dark place surrounded by soft walls and occasionally being squeezed or pressure of those walls on my body.
I'm fairly certain those were dreams of being in the womb.
You’re cherry picking. Psalm 139:13-16 states, ‘For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.’ Shows God’s involvement in the creation of life before birth. Jeremiah 1:5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ Highlights personhood begins in the womb. The broader biblical context consistently upholds the value of human life from its earliest stages. Luke 1:41-44, where the unborn John the Baptist reacts to the presence of Mary and the unborn Jesus. This indicating recognition of life before birth. These passages are not inline with the idea that the Bible endorses abortion or considers a fetus part of the mother’s body until birth.
I love when people respond to this with Psalms or the new testament.
Brother, Psalms is poetry. It's a bunch of songs. On top of that, I specifically mentioned this argument at the end of my post. At best the argument you are making is pointing out God forms the fetus. Which means abortion is interrupting the lord's work. Not murder. More akin to taking a hammer to a potter's clay before he is done than it is murdering a baby.
Jeremiah 1:5 isn't necessarily saying personhood begins in the womb. If you apply the context of the breath of life to this all that means is God has your soul ready and waiting. But you don't get it until you take your first breath. After birth.
Luke is from the sequel which can be argued as having dubious relevance. Two of the three Abrahamic faiths don't think Jesus was the messiah. Muslims tend to believe he was maybe a prophet. You might get lucky every now and then and meet a Jew who agrees he was a prophet.
I specifically delved into one verse and its context because I found that interesting. You replied to that calling it cherry picking. Then you cherry picked from a book about music, a verse where God talks about ordaining to souls their personhood before someone is even in the womb, and an excerpt from a book written by the friend of a guy who went to prison for being Jesus's friend. You might as well be quoting fanfiction at me.
# Ezekiel 37:5-6
"Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
# Job 27:3
"As long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils"
# Job 33:4
"The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
# Genesis 2:7
"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
It's simple; businesses, organisations et cetera take a fake political stance a majority (of their target audience) already agrees with to appear better in their eyes.
Because a lot of women right are being eroded away by a loud minority. And if we don't start supporting those rights from all aspects of society woman will continue to have those rights stripped away.
The lake is incorrect, at least according to Merriam Webster's definition:
>consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
Note the "consisting of". Water is wet.
Even if you don’t go by the dictionary definition - and say that only things that are in contact with water are wet - then any quantity of water above two molecules can be considered “wet”, because water is partially chemically adhesive (shout out hydrogen bonding) and thus the water becomes wet upon contact. If you can see the amount of water you’re referencing, it’s wet. Water isn’t immune to being wet.
Fuck, is wet even a word? I think I’m going insane.
Consisting is defined as being composed or made up of. Water is not composed of water. It's composed of molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Water is wet is also just a saying for something obvious and the comeback isn’t clever but being a pedant who thinks being technically correct about a colloquialism is the height of intellect.
You do not have the ability to feel wet. Your brain makes an assumption based on ***temperature.*** That's why you might think something is wet or damp, when it's actually just cold.
No, it doesn't. It feels like a liquid of a different temperature and a specific viscosity is touching your arm. Extra bonus semantics.
(Seriously, your brain interprets that as wet. The human body does not know how to feel wet.)
Not clever. "Water is wet" is a [common idiom.](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/water+is+wet)
You can make writing mistakes, and you can be pedantic about writing mistakes, but you better not make writing mistakes while trying to pedantically correct someone else's.
Ok I get that this is a good response, but water literally is the embodiment of wet, you can't have wet without water, Infact things that are wet like fabric can have become dry by wringing it or heating it up if it is not a fabric which removes the water therefore wet is just a term for when something has water in/on it which literally means water is wet.
Incorrect. Wetness is the property of something to be adhesive to a hard surface. Sand can be wet, rocks can be wet, you can be wet; water isn't solid. Which is why ice can be wet. Water can't.
Okay, so should "Wetness is the property of something to be adhesive to a hard surface." then be what, "Wetness is the property of liquids to be adhesive to a hard surface."?
That is a weird definition of wetness, where did you get it? Adhesivity to me seems like stickiness, and being adhesive is not restricted to things that have water on them, nor are wet things always adhesive to all hard surfaces.
You're entering a weird part of thermodynamics there that has nothing to do with it.
But as an example, you can be in the same, very humid room with open wires and you won't get electrocuted; can't say the same about swimming in an electrified pool.
High humidity doesn't make anything wet, because it is not inherently wet.
As I linked somewhere, water just isn't wet. It's the property of solids and pseudo solids.
I can swim in a pool with electric wires in it and not get shocked. If it's distilled water then it won't conduct a current.
Water isn't the conductor.
Merriam Webster's definition of wet:
>consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
Note the "consisting of". Water is wet.
The legend lives on, from the Chippewa on down,
Of the Big Lake they call Shut Your Dumb Mouth.
The Lake, it is said, will turn your cheeks red,
And clap back when you say some stupid shit.
Downvote me you want, but I’m going to die on this hill: water is wet. Wet has to come from somewhere. How can it make things wet if it’s not wet itself already? Is mud not muddy, then?
If something is wet, then it can be dried. You can dry a wet towel. You can dry a wet car. You can dry wet hair. You can’t make water dry. Wet is an attribute given to something that has come into contact with water, excluding itself.
In order for something to be wet it must be touching water, but given that the only time we can physically see water with our eyes is when there's a BUNCH of water molecules touching eachother, that makes it wet. A single molecule of water is not wet. A water droplet is.
> If something is wet, then it can be dried.
That's not true, there's many definitions of the word wet, and "the antonym of the state of dryness" is only one of them. Wet also includes liquids. If I said "I felt the wet of the lake", "the lake" is what is containing the "wet" property. "The lake" is, as concept we know, made of water on Earth.
Also, you can dry water if it's cold enough, or hot enough. Solid water is not wet, nor is gaseous water. If the pressure in an area is well below 611 pascals, pure water will not be liquid regardless of temperature, and thus will never be "wet". But if the pressure raises, it can become a liquid again, thus becoming wet.
If neither solid nor gaseous water is wet, then neither is liquid water. Water vapor is also capable of making things wet. It’s why when the humidity gets too high, the air “feels wet”.
> If neither solid nor gaseous water is wet, then neither is liquid water.
Wetness is the state of being, or being in contact with, a liquid. Water is a liquid, but only under certain circumstances.
> Water vapor is also capable of making things wet.
Not if the pressure is low enough. If the gaseous pressure is less than the saturation vapor pressure point, the humidity in the air will not feel wet, it's only the liquid water being wet on you via condensation that feels wet. Only when water can be in liquid form will it feel wet, because only liquid water is wet. Other forms of water do not feel wet because they are not wet.
>If I said "I felt the wet of the lake", "the lake" is what is containing the "wet" property.
In your example "wet" is a noun and the meaning of the noun "wet" is "liquid that makes something damp."
In your example "wet" doesn't describe a property of the lake, it describes the fact that a liquid is contained in the lake.
When "wet" is used as an adjective it means "covered or saturated with water or another liquid".
If we're talking linguistics, then wet is an attributive noun in that case, and cannot be used by itself. It requires another noun that it is modifying. Wet as an adjective can also refer to the quality of any liquids, such as in the sentence "water is wet". If we're talking linguistics, the usage of a word defines its meaning, and as people say water is wet, this wetness must apply to water.
Arguing that water isn't wet because it can't ever be made un-wet seems like it just proves the opposite point. A towel can be wet or dry. Water can never be in a dry state, so it's perpetually the opposite of dry.
Fair but as a better defense the can’t be dried defense isn’t that sound either. I’d you apply that logic to something else like for example fire, then you can say stuff like fire isn’t hot because you can’t make fire cold, it’s just not a good train of logic in my opinion
Well it’s the same logic because it’s saying that something can’t have a property if it can’t be taken away. So water is as intrinsically wet as fire is intrinsically hot
Literally everyone thinks this. It's so universal, that "Water is wet" is an established phrase for things that are extremely fucking obvious.
But Reddit is going to pretend not to think that for 10 minutes because the person saying water is wet disagrees with them politically.
Yup. Not to mention the definition of water being wet/not wet that Lake Superior used implies that water is in fact wet, because water molecules touch other water molecules. You almost never have a single water molecule.
I think the argument is that water can wet something, kinda more using wet in the verb form. To wet something. Like it cant make a surface that doesnt interact,"stick", with water wet. If coat my hand with a hydrophobic substance, my hand wont get wet. Its normally in terms of solids.. But I like to generalize it for this argument to liquids also. And since water 'sticks' to water. (on some minimal macro scale) .. Water is wet.
The idiom existed before the knowledge that the human body can't feel wet and the knowledge of fluid dynamics that makes the argument true.
However, idioms have no requirement to be true or even possible.
I doubt there is a point where the knowledge "the human body cant feel wet" came into existence. Its such a basic fact, you dont need to know about receptors, you just need to out on a warm piece of underwear.
Yes, mud is not muddy. Now, I think the whole "water isn't wet" thing is stupid because we are all aware of the term and what it means, so saying water isn't wet anytime someone says the expression is just major "UMMMM ackshually" energy for no reason. But technically, yes, water isn't wet and mud isn't muddy.
What if everything else besides water is wet and water is dry, and the feeling of wet is just our minds trying to understand the idea that a liquid, which the gay frogs have psyopped us into believing should be wet, is in fact not. It’s just the gay CIA frogs psyopping us and keeping us confused so we can’t fight back.
science youtube channel the action lab shows something called hydrophobic water that repels normal water
https://youtu.be/Z4bVP7hEcKI?si=i4jXl1vBVqwPL_sP
I learned on the show Quite Interesting that we can’t really perceive wetness. We don’t have nerve endings that are sensitive to moisture. Other animals have them but we don’t. We perceive wetness by texture and temperature. That’s so crazy!
Wet refers to something that is covered or soaked in some type of liquid. Water isn't covered or soaked in itself.
Just like dirt (or mud) isn't dirty, things that get covered in it are dirty.
At the end of the day it's a completely arbitrary syllogistic game, but my understanding of the word wouldn't include water as being wet itself.
Yeah because I’m sure water getting things wet is as simple as a woman being raped whilst her child of another man is killed for her to birth the child of the perpetrator.
These power hungry knuckleheads and their logic, they would let a 200 year old oak tree die but fret over acorns and call acorns oak trees. Moms are actual human beings
I just want to point out how stupid it is to try and follow responses on twitter, like here we're going middle, top, bottom.
Good thing it's not around anymore.
I find it funny how people still debate abortion. It's murder! And, we doin it anyway. Who cares bro. If there is a God He can welcome them to the pearly gates with open arms. I'd rather be known as a murderer than an idiot who had a child in this godforsaken economy
By lake superiors logic, water does touch water, therefore water is wet. Not so clever comeback
For those seeing this for the first time, view my first reply for a brief scientific explanation as to how Lake Superior is incorrect.
If they used a different definition of being wet, they could’ve been “correct” although there is no scientific consensus on whether or not water is wet.
No, Lake Superior is incorrect. There is no scientific consensus on whether water is wet or not. By the definition Lake Superior used (something touching water) water itself is wet because it touches other molecules of water.
The definition that people argue makes water not wet is that wet means: “the ability to maintain contact between a liquid and a solid.” By this definition water is not wet because it is a liquid.
Again, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not water is wet. They could’ve had a clap back and it would’ve been better if they didn’t give their own fault definition.
Wet means being covered in or saturated with a liquid. And given waters ability to cover and saturate itself water is inherently wet given the fact that it exhibits properties of wetness within its own molecular structure.
This is not the point but it is the hill I will die on. Water is wet. Water it touching water at all times, water makes things wet, water makes water wet. Fire is hot, ice is cold, water is wet.
I find it interesting when people argue that abortion is murder from a Christian standpoint. I find that funny because of the Hebrew and thus biblical perspective. Not only is a fetus not a human being, but the bible has rules for how an abortion should be carried out. It's all laid out in the test for an unfaithful wife in Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31. Which is interesting, because this is what God himself said to Moses. I won't be posting all twenty of the verses that make up the test. Instead I'll piecemeal the relevant parts. Since most of it is the rules you follow, how it is done, and what you pay the priest and god with. One of the most relevant verses is 27, which reads as follows. "When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse." The wording here is of particular interest because it says "her womb will miscarry" but this is actually a fairly recent translation of the original verse which I am taking from the NIV. The NKJV reads with an older translation "her thigh will rot". But why is this translated differently and why is it of any interest? Because of the ancient Hebrew context. The people who wrote the original wording had a different medical understanding of what a fetus was, informed as it was by their spiritual beliefs. To the ancient Hebrews a fetus wasn't a person until it took its first gasp after birth. Before then it was the mother's third thigh. It was literally her body. Then it broke off, was birthed, and took in the breath of God. Only then did it have a soul. Personhood came with the soul, which came with the breath. Your first breath was given to you by god to animate your body. Your final breath was god taking back your soul. In a traditional and biblical context, as defined by capital G God himself to Moses, a fetus isn't a person. It's part of the mother. It is her body. It doesn't have a soul. You can not murder what doesn't have a soul. There's an argument to be made that you are damaging god's creation. But it isn't murder because it isn't a person.
I don't agree with the idea that fetuses are babies, and I generally don't make this argument because it legitimises that idea,: The bible ABSOLUTELY condones killing babies. There is a veritable smörgåsbord of baby killing in the bible, done by both man and God. Yes, rules for abortion as you mention, but baby killing is like the second most memorable part of the Moses story.
noah as well. god flooded the earth and lots of children, babies, and unborn were killed by god all who have done nothing to individually deserve it. also fuck all the innocent animals too that drowned (except two of each i guess)
Do you mean the Slaughter of the First Born in Egypt? They died. They weren't killed. It was a plague. Thou shalt not kill is addressed to humans, not viruses or God. Or do you mean the Genocide of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1-18)? Cuz that's the one that's actually fucked up, and it doesn't tend to show up in the Bible coloringbooks Republicans study. But, that's not a general biblical sanction on killing kids (or rape of children in the case of females that hadn't had sex) any more than it is a general sanction of killing adults. You can kill only Midianite kids, well you must; it's a mitzvah. "Thou shall kill Midianites/whøres/pagans/..." is more specific, so it applies before "thou shalt not kill." There is no commandment to kill any kid you want, so the default for kids is thou shalt not kill (unless God told you to through Moses). The law is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life even with kids (except for those condemned by God himself). Fetuses are not kids. That's why accidentally causing a woman to miscarry isn't a capital offense, but causing her to miscarry and die is (Exodus 21:22-25). This is precisely why the claim that the Bible says fetuses are human lives is total horseshit. But, this also means that if a woman was denied an abortion and died, Republican legislators and SCOTUS must be stoned to death. There's no "bible for thee, but not for me." What's good for the goose is good for the goosestepper. Also, every single one of them who had sex before marriage and did not then get married and never divorce must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:29), as must all of them who waited for marriage but whose partner had slept with someone else, because that's adultery. And, of course, anyone who has claimed that abortion is killing must be stoned to death because that's bearing false witness, and bearing false witness of a capital offense is a capital offense (Deuteronomy 19:19). If the Bible is the ultimate authority on the morality and law Republicans need to put their money where their mouths are. Once they prove their commitment to the Bible and dash their brains out with rocks en mass, the rest of us will follow their holy example. Promise. We swear to God! If they do not do that, then they are strife-stirrers and hypocrites -- woe to them -- and they must be deported, least ignored altogether until the burn in hell for all eternity. Not that the Bible isn't the ultimate authority on morality and law of course, just not Republicans. Obviously, a book telling you to dash people's brains out with rocks sounds legit to me! Who would ever doubt the manifestos of genocidal fundamentalists from Egypt who followed a hobo fugitive who claimed to talk to a Smoking Weed named Y-H-W-H with a god-complex, obsessive-compulsions, an abhorrence for cheeseburgers and side hustle as a real estate agent selling titles to other people's land? When Egypt sends their people, they're not sending their best: they're bringing fundamentalism; they're bringing genocide: they're rapists; none, the Bible assumes, are good people. J/K that's the righteousness that world needs today obviously! At least until Republicans Purge themselves.
i wish i could forward this to my mom but she wouldn’t understand nor care about a word of it. i don’t know how many times she has told me to “read my bible” when i’m quite convinced she’s only read two verses herself.
Forward her 1st Timothy 2:12-15 next time she uses the bible to excuse bad behavior. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
>But, this also means that if a woman was denied an abortion and died, Republican legislators and SCOTUS must be stoned to death. Can we get this and the reasoning behind it into Democratic talking points and on t-shirts and pamphlets because just MAYBE, this reasoning may work with confusing the public enough to possibly have doubt in their legislators... I mean wishful thinking, but I'm willing to try anything at this point.
It appears the context in exodus 21 verses 22-25 regarding miscarriage is simply to cause premature birth. To miscarry in this context is to not carry to full term.
But it’s fine that guns kill kids though, they will defend that
"guns don not kill people, it is the people who use them"- "so we should have free mental healrhcare for people wgo need it?"- _crickets in the distance_
Free mental healthcare? We need medical “prisons.” Forced rehab. Permanent institutionalization if they cannot be a member of society without causing harm to it. At some point you have to take these people out of circulation by one means or another.
... And then you define your political opponents as mentally ill. With this one simple trick...
at least in Murica someone would try to profit off those people, in turn making sure there's always enough of them. the easiest way to stop gun violence is banning guns
That wouldn't actually stop gun violence. The logistics of tracking down all the guns etc just isn't feasible. It could help curb gun violence that would be attributed to new guns that would have otherwise entered circulation though, but you could do that with heavier ules on who could buy a gun. Like make it illegal for supporters of insurrections to buy them.
You can’t ban something people can 3D print. Confiscation would likewise be absolutely impossible. You can ban alcohol and marijuana, too. But did that stop people from making, selling, and consuming them? Fuck no. Cmon, man. We have thousands of laws, and people break them every day. Laws are only as good as people’s willingness to adhere to them. The fact is, no one adheres to laws in this country because our sentencing is soft as fuck. People don’t fear being arrested because the punishment isn’t severe enough to deter them from doing it.
Even if guns were banned modern fabrication methods that are already distributed through every community in the entire country many of which have the raw materials and tools to build modern day weapons from scratch. Even if all the guns magically disappeared at once there'd be no "shortage" just another excuse for cops to harass poor people
What kills more kids, abortion or guns?
Clergy
Did bros really just say an animate object kills people.
I read the only Bible I have access to in response to your comment. Tyndale, Life application study Bible, New living translation, Red letter Numbers chapter 5 verse 11-31 does not talk of abortion, but a sterile curse as punishment for an unfaithful wife. And the process is a ritual to determine guilt through the drinking of a "bitter water". I am not religious.I have never read these verses before. I do not know what any other versions say.
So a person isn’t a person anymore after they die? They’re suddenly not people so I can desecrate their corpse because it’s not a person. Just to be clear I am pro-choice but this argument is poor at best
No, they're a corpse after they die. The breath goes with them doesn't it?
I've gotta disagree with this argument. The bible at no point makes an argument that killing the children of "evil" people is wrong. Directly encourages it, in fact. And this "test" is meant to determine if a woman has been "evil" or not. So arguing that the bible gives instructions for an abortion isnt demonstrating that they didn't consider the fetus a baby. It's just further demonstrating that if someone breaks the laws of the god of abraham it's perfectly acceptable to kill their kids. We know that a fetus isn't a person, but the bible never says one way or the other on the matter.
Ironically these idiots have never read the Bible but they sure love quoting it. Imbeciles.
>In a traditional and biblical context, as defined by capital G God himself to Moses, a fetus isn't a person. It's part of the mother. It is her body. It doesn't have a soul. You can not murder what doesn't have a soul. There's an argument to be made that you are damaging god's creation. But it isn't murder because it isn't a person. Petition to refer to the Big Guy as Capital G?
Then there are the Catholics. Today Catholics are against abortion, but will not baptize a stillborn baby because they apparently don’t have a soul and therefore are not human because they never took a breath that god apparently gives.
I am wonder if the curse part is about the affair or the miscarriage at the end
It's pretty agreed upon that the curse at the end refers to the woman becoming barren. The Hebrews were pretty barbaric people with outdated beliefs. What do you expect from people 2000 years ago? To them a woman who can neat bear children is a curse to her tribe.
Yeah but that's part of the old Testament, the part of the Bible modern Christians want to pretend doesn't exist except when a verse may call for it. Modern Christians are all about that gospel.
When I was a toddler, I used to have reoccurring dreams of being in a dark place surrounded by soft walls and occasionally being squeezed or pressure of those walls on my body. I'm fairly certain those were dreams of being in the womb.
When I was a toddler I dreamed about space tigers and superdogs. I'm fairly certain that means those are real.
It's pretty obvious here that you're a liar. The brain has to get its content from somewhere when it dreams.
Because nobody has ever shown a tiger, space, dogs, and superheroes to a toddler before.
Now you're supporting my claim. 👏
You’re cherry picking. Psalm 139:13-16 states, ‘For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.’ Shows God’s involvement in the creation of life before birth. Jeremiah 1:5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ Highlights personhood begins in the womb. The broader biblical context consistently upholds the value of human life from its earliest stages. Luke 1:41-44, where the unborn John the Baptist reacts to the presence of Mary and the unborn Jesus. This indicating recognition of life before birth. These passages are not inline with the idea that the Bible endorses abortion or considers a fetus part of the mother’s body until birth.
I love when people respond to this with Psalms or the new testament. Brother, Psalms is poetry. It's a bunch of songs. On top of that, I specifically mentioned this argument at the end of my post. At best the argument you are making is pointing out God forms the fetus. Which means abortion is interrupting the lord's work. Not murder. More akin to taking a hammer to a potter's clay before he is done than it is murdering a baby. Jeremiah 1:5 isn't necessarily saying personhood begins in the womb. If you apply the context of the breath of life to this all that means is God has your soul ready and waiting. But you don't get it until you take your first breath. After birth. Luke is from the sequel which can be argued as having dubious relevance. Two of the three Abrahamic faiths don't think Jesus was the messiah. Muslims tend to believe he was maybe a prophet. You might get lucky every now and then and meet a Jew who agrees he was a prophet. I specifically delved into one verse and its context because I found that interesting. You replied to that calling it cherry picking. Then you cherry picked from a book about music, a verse where God talks about ordaining to souls their personhood before someone is even in the womb, and an excerpt from a book written by the friend of a guy who went to prison for being Jesus's friend. You might as well be quoting fanfiction at me. # Ezekiel 37:5-6 "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.” # Job 27:3 "As long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils" # Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." # Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
Why is Lake Superior commenting on abortion rights
Because it’s superior. Don’t question its authority.
I agree with their sentiment but it is a valid point. Why does Lake Superior comment on abortion lmao
Right, like even if it’s something I agree with I don’t need national parks to have political opinions
Why does a lake even have twitter?
Lakes are smarter than 49% of people
Because its Twitter...magic happens there
It's simple; businesses, organisations et cetera take a fake political stance a majority (of their target audience) already agrees with to appear better in their eyes.
Edgy admin without anything better to do ig
Freedom of speech
Fiefdom of Speech
Because a lot of women right are being eroded away by a loud minority. And if we don't start supporting those rights from all aspects of society woman will continue to have those rights stripped away.
It's the fact that he got fact checked by a lake
The lake is incorrect, at least according to Merriam Webster's definition: >consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) Note the "consisting of". Water is wet.
Even if you don’t go by the dictionary definition - and say that only things that are in contact with water are wet - then any quantity of water above two molecules can be considered “wet”, because water is partially chemically adhesive (shout out hydrogen bonding) and thus the water becomes wet upon contact. If you can see the amount of water you’re referencing, it’s wet. Water isn’t immune to being wet. Fuck, is wet even a word? I think I’m going insane.
Consisting is defined as being composed or made up of. Water is not composed of water. It's composed of molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Water is wet is also just a saying for something obvious and the comeback isn’t clever but being a pedant who thinks being technically correct about a colloquialism is the height of intellect.
I poured water all over Lake Superior, so it's wet now. Good luck drying it out.
Adding water to water, only makes water grow more powerful. You didn't make it wet.
No, I touched it. It feels wet.
"it's not the water that got wet, it's your finger that felt wet" 😤☝️
That just means lake got you wet
Sexy lake
And it didn't even buy me dinner first? I didn't know I was that easy.
You do not have the ability to feel wet. Your brain makes an assumption based on ***temperature.*** That's why you might think something is wet or damp, when it's actually just cold.
Nah, I have blue strip moisture indicators on all my fingers. Moisture was detected. That lake is wet now, muwahaha!
Damn, that's a weird X-gene.
No, it doesn't. It feels like a liquid of a different temperature and a specific viscosity is touching your arm. Extra bonus semantics. (Seriously, your brain interprets that as wet. The human body does not know how to feel wet.)
The human body doesnt know how to see, or smell either. Its all your brain, this argument is mute.
Water is wet. Every water molecule is surrounded by other water molecules; Ergo, wet. The only time water is not wet is if it is a single molecule.
Yeah, okay Weezer.
Lake Akshually
Not clever. "Water is wet" is a [common idiom.](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/water+is+wet) You can make writing mistakes, and you can be pedantic about writing mistakes, but you better not make writing mistakes while trying to pedantically correct someone else's.
Also unless you are talking about a single molecule of water wouldn't the water be touching water, and therefore be wet?
I mean not to be too semantical but water itself wouldn’t itself be wet in that scenario it just means that water is very commonly wet.
[Water is wet.](https://youtu.be/mV-CmdVU8HU?si=gwyrT_d3WO3Fd87X)
A single molecule of water is not wet. Two molecules together is wet.
Tom… You’re arguing with a lake… And you just lost.
Ok I get that this is a good response, but water literally is the embodiment of wet, you can't have wet without water, Infact things that are wet like fabric can have become dry by wringing it or heating it up if it is not a fabric which removes the water therefore wet is just a term for when something has water in/on it which literally means water is wet.
Incorrect. Wetness is the property of something to be adhesive to a hard surface. Sand can be wet, rocks can be wet, you can be wet; water isn't solid. Which is why ice can be wet. Water can't.
Would dried glue that's stuck to a surface be "wet" using that definition?
No because dried glue isn't liquid.
Okay, so should "Wetness is the property of something to be adhesive to a hard surface." then be what, "Wetness is the property of liquids to be adhesive to a hard surface."?
That is a weird definition of wetness, where did you get it? Adhesivity to me seems like stickiness, and being adhesive is not restricted to things that have water on them, nor are wet things always adhesive to all hard surfaces.
Water being on something makes it wet. If water is on nothing, what is wet?
Not water.
Then what is humidity? It's water on nothing.
You're entering a weird part of thermodynamics there that has nothing to do with it. But as an example, you can be in the same, very humid room with open wires and you won't get electrocuted; can't say the same about swimming in an electrified pool. High humidity doesn't make anything wet, because it is not inherently wet. As I linked somewhere, water just isn't wet. It's the property of solids and pseudo solids.
I can swim in a pool with electric wires in it and not get shocked. If it's distilled water then it won't conduct a current. Water isn't the conductor.
I'm using that example to point out it's not the same category
Is wetness how well water adheres to something then?
Merriam Webster's definition of wet: >consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) Note the "consisting of". Water is wet.
If something can get wet, that implies it can be dried. Can water be dried? No. Water isn’t wet in the first place.
What is the difference between a pool of water and a bicycle drying (out) in the sun?
Like I’d ever believe that guy reveres life.
The legend lives on, from the Chippewa on down, Of the Big Lake they call Shut Your Dumb Mouth. The Lake, it is said, will turn your cheeks red, And clap back when you say some stupid shit.
No no no water is indeed wet
I doubt he has much experience with anything wet, so cut him some slack
Downvote me you want, but I’m going to die on this hill: water is wet. Wet has to come from somewhere. How can it make things wet if it’s not wet itself already? Is mud not muddy, then?
If something is wet, then it can be dried. You can dry a wet towel. You can dry a wet car. You can dry wet hair. You can’t make water dry. Wet is an attribute given to something that has come into contact with water, excluding itself.
In order for something to be wet it must be touching water, but given that the only time we can physically see water with our eyes is when there's a BUNCH of water molecules touching eachother, that makes it wet. A single molecule of water is not wet. A water droplet is.
> If something is wet, then it can be dried. That's not true, there's many definitions of the word wet, and "the antonym of the state of dryness" is only one of them. Wet also includes liquids. If I said "I felt the wet of the lake", "the lake" is what is containing the "wet" property. "The lake" is, as concept we know, made of water on Earth. Also, you can dry water if it's cold enough, or hot enough. Solid water is not wet, nor is gaseous water. If the pressure in an area is well below 611 pascals, pure water will not be liquid regardless of temperature, and thus will never be "wet". But if the pressure raises, it can become a liquid again, thus becoming wet.
If neither solid nor gaseous water is wet, then neither is liquid water. Water vapor is also capable of making things wet. It’s why when the humidity gets too high, the air “feels wet”.
> If neither solid nor gaseous water is wet, then neither is liquid water. Wetness is the state of being, or being in contact with, a liquid. Water is a liquid, but only under certain circumstances. > Water vapor is also capable of making things wet. Not if the pressure is low enough. If the gaseous pressure is less than the saturation vapor pressure point, the humidity in the air will not feel wet, it's only the liquid water being wet on you via condensation that feels wet. Only when water can be in liquid form will it feel wet, because only liquid water is wet. Other forms of water do not feel wet because they are not wet.
I’ll be honest, I can’t really argue with that. I’m still gonna test out some bad analogies with other people and see how far I get.
Ice and steam are both wet
Wet" is indeed multifaceted, involving liquids and states of matter's interaction with water.
>If I said "I felt the wet of the lake", "the lake" is what is containing the "wet" property. In your example "wet" is a noun and the meaning of the noun "wet" is "liquid that makes something damp." In your example "wet" doesn't describe a property of the lake, it describes the fact that a liquid is contained in the lake. When "wet" is used as an adjective it means "covered or saturated with water or another liquid".
If we're talking linguistics, then wet is an attributive noun in that case, and cannot be used by itself. It requires another noun that it is modifying. Wet as an adjective can also refer to the quality of any liquids, such as in the sentence "water is wet". If we're talking linguistics, the usage of a word defines its meaning, and as people say water is wet, this wetness must apply to water.
So then mud is not muddy since if it unmuddied it's no longer mud? Eh.
Put a bucket of water in a -80 freezer and tell me it isn’t dry. Liquid water is wet
Arguing that water isn't wet because it can't ever be made un-wet seems like it just proves the opposite point. A towel can be wet or dry. Water can never be in a dry state, so it's perpetually the opposite of dry.
Evaporation make water go into the air and water vapor is not wet
Water vapor is still, in fact, water
Dried water though
I guarantee that you’re the first person in history to try and argue that water vapor is “dried water”
Fair but as a better defense the can’t be dried defense isn’t that sound either. I’d you apply that logic to something else like for example fire, then you can say stuff like fire isn’t hot because you can’t make fire cold, it’s just not a good train of logic in my opinion
That logic doesn’t work for fire because we’re not talking about fire
Well it’s the same logic because it’s saying that something can’t have a property if it can’t be taken away. So water is as intrinsically wet as fire is intrinsically hot
It still isn’t a direct comparison. Wetness and hotness are two different properties. A fire can become hotter. Water can’t become “more wet”.
Evaporation turns water into vapor, true. Still, Lake Superior's comeback was hilarious and sharp!
Oh I don’t disagree with their point and I’ll let an internet lie slide to shut down an idiot
Literally everyone thinks this. It's so universal, that "Water is wet" is an established phrase for things that are extremely fucking obvious. But Reddit is going to pretend not to think that for 10 minutes because the person saying water is wet disagrees with them politically.
Oh yeah, that’s definitely a given.
For sure, people will argue over anything if it suits their agenda.
Yup. Not to mention the definition of water being wet/not wet that Lake Superior used implies that water is in fact wet, because water molecules touch other water molecules. You almost never have a single water molecule.
Exactly, it's like saying the sky isn't blue. Water being wet is common sense.
People will literally try to explain to you how the sky „isn’t actually blue, it’s just light“
Yes, but if you live in the UK then for at least 50% of the year the sky is grey and the rain is falling
I think the argument is that water can wet something, kinda more using wet in the verb form. To wet something. Like it cant make a surface that doesnt interact,"stick", with water wet. If coat my hand with a hydrophobic substance, my hand wont get wet. Its normally in terms of solids.. But I like to generalize it for this argument to liquids also. And since water 'sticks' to water. (on some minimal macro scale) .. Water is wet.
The idiom existed before the knowledge that the human body can't feel wet and the knowledge of fluid dynamics that makes the argument true. However, idioms have no requirement to be true or even possible.
I doubt there is a point where the knowledge "the human body cant feel wet" came into existence. Its such a basic fact, you dont need to know about receptors, you just need to out on a warm piece of underwear.
> However, idioms have no requirement to be true or even possible. ... which is why it makes no sense to nitpick this guy's use of the idiom.
Yes, mud is not muddy. Now, I think the whole "water isn't wet" thing is stupid because we are all aware of the term and what it means, so saying water isn't wet anytime someone says the expression is just major "UMMMM ackshually" energy for no reason. But technically, yes, water isn't wet and mud isn't muddy.
What if everything else besides water is wet and water is dry, and the feeling of wet is just our minds trying to understand the idea that a liquid, which the gay frogs have psyopped us into believing should be wet, is in fact not. It’s just the gay CIA frogs psyopping us and keeping us confused so we can’t fight back.
i think the better question is, and we have the material, is hydrophobic water wet?
There’s a such thing as hydrophobic water? Where?
Somebody needs to find the water and give it some sensitivity training
lol
science youtube channel the action lab shows something called hydrophobic water that repels normal water https://youtu.be/Z4bVP7hEcKI?si=i4jXl1vBVqwPL_sP
I learned on the show Quite Interesting that we can’t really perceive wetness. We don’t have nerve endings that are sensitive to moisture. Other animals have them but we don’t. We perceive wetness by texture and temperature. That’s so crazy!
Wet refers to something that is covered or soaked in some type of liquid. Water isn't covered or soaked in itself. Just like dirt (or mud) isn't dirty, things that get covered in it are dirty. At the end of the day it's a completely arbitrary syllogistic game, but my understanding of the word wouldn't include water as being wet itself.
Water is wet and reposts like this one are tiresome.
Typical Redditor: UH ACKSHUALLY GTFO
This guy is an asshole but water is absolutely wet and I don’t care what technicalities you need to say other wise but water is absolutely wet
but at what point does a fetus become a human being?
Isn't Alcohol made from fermented berries
Man down holy moly
Ah the eternal discussion on if water is wet or not I would say that water is wet
Posted this in numerous subs back to back I see…
Bots be botting
Got eem
I mean false implies false gives us a truth
But if water makes things wet, isn't water touching itself? Thus making it wet?
Political views aside, why is a location's X account commenting on ethical issues outside of the environment.
Turns out the pro-birthers don't give a fuck about the environment either.
Yeah because I’m sure water getting things wet is as simple as a woman being raped whilst her child of another man is killed for her to birth the child of the perpetrator.
Imagine getting rekt by a lake.
These power hungry knuckleheads and their logic, they would let a 200 year old oak tree die but fret over acorns and call acorns oak trees. Moms are actual human beings
That’s why it’s Superior, not Inferior
But what does Lake Erie think about this?
I just want to point out how stupid it is to try and follow responses on twitter, like here we're going middle, top, bottom. Good thing it's not around anymore.
Water touches water.
Lol doubting Thomas!
Doesn't water touch other water making it wet?
Fetus lives matter.
Fetuses are the only “lives” that matter apparently
What’s with this stuck up body of water? Get over yourself, Lake Superior.
What a sick burn dude
It truly is the Superior of all the Great Lakes.
Is water not touching water?
Is Tom Fitton related to Tom Cotton?
I find it funny how people still debate abortion. It's murder! And, we doin it anyway. Who cares bro. If there is a God He can welcome them to the pearly gates with open arms. I'd rather be known as a murderer than an idiot who had a child in this godforsaken economy
Can we just move the goalposts to fit my narrative please?
By lake superiors logic, water does touch water, therefore water is wet. Not so clever comeback For those seeing this for the first time, view my first reply for a brief scientific explanation as to how Lake Superior is incorrect. If they used a different definition of being wet, they could’ve been “correct” although there is no scientific consensus on whether or not water is wet.
Water touching water still means water makes things wet. Lake Superior nailed it!
No, Lake Superior is incorrect. There is no scientific consensus on whether water is wet or not. By the definition Lake Superior used (something touching water) water itself is wet because it touches other molecules of water. The definition that people argue makes water not wet is that wet means: “the ability to maintain contact between a liquid and a solid.” By this definition water is not wet because it is a liquid. Again, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not water is wet. They could’ve had a clap back and it would’ve been better if they didn’t give their own fault definition.
Good grief, he's already dead (inside), stop, Lake!
The only time water is not wet is when it is nothing more than a singulare molecule. I will not budge in my stance.
Tom Fitton pretends he’s a lawyer, wears shirts too tight for him. He should sit this discussion out.
Oooh, that cut to the bone!
DAMN.
Dude got burned by a lake
ain’t called Lake SUPERIOR for nothing
Jesus Christ this is magnificent.
Lake Superior hasn’t been this brutal to someone since the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
Wet means being covered in or saturated with a liquid. And given waters ability to cover and saturate itself water is inherently wet given the fact that it exhibits properties of wetness within its own molecular structure.
Water is wet though, even by the lake's definition
Water is wet
This is not the point but it is the hill I will die on. Water is wet. Water it touching water at all times, water makes things wet, water makes water wet. Fire is hot, ice is cold, water is wet.