use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~2 users here now
News from or about specifically the United States
The Satanic Temple challenges new Texas abortion law citing religious freedom
submitted 2 years ago by carn0ld03 from khou.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (3 children)
Good ol' youtube eh?
What a scholarly source.
Is any of this written down?
[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (2 children)
Attacking the source, and not the info?
A common shill tactic.
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
I realise that it's not a sound refutation.
But I'm still not watching YouTube videos for scholarly information. The signal to noise ratio is to low to expect it to be worthwhile.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
Thanks again for the sources. The problems /u/ActuallyNot addresses are the apparent biases and lack of broader assessments of the opinions discussed in those videos. Not that opinions and historical information used in those videos aren't useful or informative, but that there is balance of discussion, or careful survey of alternative information, or no peer review assessment of the source material by a broader selection of society. For example, the rights of the mother are rarely considered by some of these religious groups, and a peer discussion would help address that problem. I see that the sources for the videos are these:
https://www.liveaction.org/
http://www.maafa21.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Dynamics_Inc.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q
All of these are religious anti-abortion groups that are obviously biased, sourcing only the points of evidence that will support their causes, without a balanced assessment. That said, Maafa 21 is very interesting and and very helpful for a discussion about the background of Roe v Wade. One can however argue that - before Roe v Wade - poor and middle-class Americans were already injured and losing their lives with illegal and abusive back alley methods of abortion. I am not a Catholic, but I very much appreciate their approaches to saving lives, families &c. I also value the potential for the Church to help with today's moral problems. I would never support, however, legislation for everyone that would restrict their activities to the standards of Church dogma. Founding Fathers of the US Constitution and subsequent legal experts appreciated the problems that would arise from this kind of legislation, as they had seen these problems as the causes of European wars.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)