- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Indiana Activist Judge Rules There is a ‘Religious Right’ to Kill Babies in Abortions
Posted on 3/7/26 at 5:53 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 5:53 am
A "religion" that kills unborn, innocent babies is evil.
LINK
quote:
A radical Marion Superior Court judge ruled that the “right” to kill an unborn child is now a protected religious exercise, permanently blocking enforcement of the state’s pro-life protections against a class of plaintiffs who claim their faith requires them to terminate pregnancies.
LINK
14
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:00 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
A "religion" that kills unborn, innocent babies is evil.
quote:
Hoosier Jews for Choice
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:02 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
The decision blocks enforcement of Indiana’s abortion ban for a certified class of plaintiffs and members of the activist group “Hoosier Jews for Choice,” who argued that abortion can be a religious practice.
I know a certain group of edgelords are PISSED they didn't get there first
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Child sacrifice is now a recognized religious sacrament in Muncie.
Folks need Jesus.
Folks need Jesus.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:41 am to lake chuck fan
According to Grok
If a law includes even the smallest exception based on compromise or compassion, the political left will exploit it to achieve their goals, in this case, enabling child sacrifice.
quote:
State-Specific Bans and Exceptions: Indiana’s near-total abortion ban (Senate Enrolled Act 1, enacted in 2022) prohibits abortions except in cases of rape/incest (up to 10 weeks), lethal fetal anomalies, or serious health risks to the mother. It doesn’t label abortion as murder but as a felony for providers (up to 6 years in prison). This reflects a policy choice to protect fetal life without granting full personhood. If abortion were legally murder, no exceptions (like for health) would exist, and it would trigger homicide investigations.
If a law includes even the smallest exception based on compromise or compassion, the political left will exploit it to achieve their goals, in this case, enabling child sacrifice.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:41 am to lake chuck fan
My question is the how serious is it since there is no procreation in that religion will essentially die off it appears to be fraudulent
This post was edited on 3/7/26 at 6:42 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:43 am to cssamerican
quote:
If a law includes even the smallest exception based on compromise or compassion, the political left will exploit it
The ruling has nothing to do with these exceptions. The claim was brought via federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
This post was edited on 3/7/26 at 6:44 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:44 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
There is a ‘Religious Right’ to Kill Babies in Abortions
I wonder if this clown would approve of a religious right to kill judges? Or arseholes?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The ruling has nothing to do with these exceptions. The claim was brought via federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
You can’t use religious freedom to justify harming or sacrificing a born person, courts reject those claims because the state has a compelling interest in preventing murder and protecting recognized persons.
But with abortion, the law does not treat the unborn fetus as a full legal “person” with the same rights as someone born. That’s exactly why a narrow religious exemption under Indiana’s RFRA was possible: the state’s interest in fetal life is strong but not absolute, so it can lose under strict scrutiny when religious beliefs conflict. Without fetal personhood, RFRA can apply here in ways it never could for actual murder.
So yes, exceptions are exactly the reason why this was possible.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:53 am to cssamerican
quote:
So yes, exceptions are exactly the reason why this was possible.
An unborn fetus not being a person isn't an "exception", though. You tried to pivot and change your argument and it still fails.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:04 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Hoosier Jews for Choice
Hmm...
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An unborn fetus not being a person isn't an "exception", though. You tried to pivot and change your argument and it still fails.
By including exceptions in its near-total abortion ban for cases like rape, incest, or lethal fetal anomalies, Indiana’s law inherently treats the fetus as something less than a full legal “person” with absolute rights to life, similar to how born persons have no exceptions allowing their intentional killing even in compassionate or unique circumstances.
This lack of unequivocal fetal personhood weakens the state’s claim of a compelling, uniform interest in protecting “prenatal life,” which is exactly why the court could grant a religious exemption under RFRA without contradicting murder laws. The exceptions create an internal inconsistency: the state allows termination for some secular reasons but not religious ones, failing strict scrutiny. That’s the core issue, not a pivot, but a direct logical consequence of not fully recognizing fetal personhood in the statute itself.
This post was edited on 3/7/26 at 7:13 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:19 am to cssamerican
quote:
By including exceptions in its near-total abortion ban for cases like rape, incest, or lethal fetal anomalies, Indiana’s law inherently treats the fetus as something less than a full legal “person” with absolute rights to life, similar to how born persons have no exceptions allowing their intentional killing even in compassionate or unique circumstances.
This is not a correct statement.
The unborn status predates this law and supersedes this law. The exceptions in the law do nothing in this area and had no impact on the case.
quote:
The exceptions create an internal inconsistency: the state allows termination for some secular reasons but not religious ones, failing strict scrutiny. That’s the core issue, not a pivot, but a direct logical consequence of not fully recognizing fetal personhood in the statute itself.
You're making a bad argument for a bad policy. Stop.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:20 am to lake chuck fan
Beginning January 22, 1973 genocide became a part of democrat social policy. They perfected the genocide, even created markets for aborted baby tissue. I'm curious, did Planned Parenthood ever finish that aborted baby factory somewhere in the Midwest?
Yep, these bloodthirsty democrats could teach the Nazis a few things about running a Holocaust.
Beam me up, Scotty - an abortionist (as he taunts a baby as he sucks it out of the womb)
Yep, these bloodthirsty democrats could teach the Nazis a few things about running a Holocaust.
Beam me up, Scotty - an abortionist (as he taunts a baby as he sucks it out of the womb)
This post was edited on 3/7/26 at 7:22 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:22 am to GeorgePaton
quote:
Trump / Vance 2026 - They fight for the unborn - the democrats fight to kill them.
Trump says he will support national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy
quote:
"We're going to come up with a time — and maybe we could bring the country together on that issue," Trump said while calling into the "Sid & Friends in the Morning" show on WABC.
Trump went on to say: "The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I'm thinking in terms of that. And it'll come out to something that's very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at."
You in favor of the 15-week cutoff?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An unborn fetus not being a person
So your argument is that a baby that isn’t born yet isn’t a human because?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:59 am to jnethe1
quote:
So your argument is that a baby that isn’t born yet isn’t a human because?
Holy shite
Posted on 3/7/26 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Holy shite
Is it your belief that a baby that hasn’t been born yet not a human?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 8:13 am to lake chuck fan
What if someone starts a religion that features killing leftists?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 8:16 am to jnethe1
It is not a legal/juridical person. That's a statement of legal status (not even an "argument" as you mischaracterized in your gotcha attempt question)
My words have NOTHING to do with if unborn fetuses are "human" for other discussions (which aren't relevant to the legal discussion you jumped into)
My words have NOTHING to do with if unborn fetuses are "human" for other discussions (which aren't relevant to the legal discussion you jumped into)
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News