You cannot manage what you cannot measure. The very concept of accounting for political personas that someone fancies for the day is absurd. You have to count the party memberships, that is unfortunately the only thing we can count; the closest thing to a mildly popular leftist party in America is the Green Party.
Abortion
Carson White
John Ward
Proofs?
Yeah but that's only because muh jews and WASP """tradition""".
There is literally nothing wrong with this.
Revolutionary defeatism is good.
Zachary Evans
Nope. The Trinity/Homoousion was made-up and imposed by Constantine's Council of Nicaea, pre-Nicene Christians differed widely in their view of the nature of Jesus, the New Testament itself is extremely vague and not explicit at all. Modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Jesus is God.
Also:
That's the Devil. Read Gnosticism.
Christopher Carter
Owen Anderson
Yes. The left has allowed the right to beat it at its own game.
Asher Rivera
Essentially everyone at the Council of Nicaea agreed with the doctrine they established except for Arius who was beaten down by Santa Claus himself.
Julian Roberts
He stated that once people are able to conceive asexually, that it is now materially shown that life is meaningless. Materially shown. He is literally making a metaphysical claim ("life is meaningless") then saying such a claim is materially supported by people being able to reproduce asexually now without actually showing how it does this. He's just drawing an arrow without any explanation of what that arrow is.
This is how it looks
Your whole argument hinges on the idea that because people did not have complete control over the ability to conceive children (it had to be shared) or control over the results of that conception, that this inability to control things gave such life meaning or at least some kind of mystic societal relevance. Its reverence gave it meaning and now that it is gone we are merely tools to be used because we are now cheap and producible. This is a ridiculous claim because it not only functions on a almost capitalist framework of viewing things ("This thing is easily producible and we have large amounts of it therefore its value is worthless and we should think less of it") but because it makes the claim that now that we have control of life that this life now looses meaning despite not showing exactly how such meaning is lost from it. It assumes meaning is derived from randomness, from the scarcity of a thing without actually showing how this was "meaning" in the first place and also attributes this "meaning" to sacredness despite not showing how this sacredness was actual "meaning" as well. Your more or less stating that the only way meaning can be derived is by the sacredness of a thing which assumes that it is the only thing that meaning can be extracted from.
Separately, in regards to your own argument, if I were to find or make a tool and I use that tool everyday and find myself attached to or concerned for the condition for that tool, despite that tool being identical to every other tool like it and plenty of it, or that tool having been constructed to my own specification, have I not given it the "meaning" you described? Respectively, if I raise and take care a child everyday and find myself attached to or concerned for the health of that child, despite that child being identical to many others and/or having been "made" in way I decided upon, have I not given or derived meaning? Is a statue meaningless to its creator because he made it and there are many like it? Is a piece of art sitting on a wall meaningless to the one who painted it because it could be made by them again easily and there are many similar like it? If we are made gods to the matter of creation, or if such a god does actually exist, does what matter we or it create or shape become "meaningless" because we or it create or shape it and could do so again for infinity? In what way does the infinitesimalness or the replicability of something determine the meaning we derive or attribute to such a thing? If such a thing is how we determine meaning, then there can be and was no meaning that could or ever be determined or derived from anything, as both we and the time we live in is and continues to grow infinitesimally small, and the uniqueness and unlikeness of our own experiences and moments continues to disappear in proportion.
Ayden Morales
"Patriarchy" doesn't exist.
Colton Wood
I'm on mobile now and won't be able to respond fully because it's a bitch to do. Essentially what I was trying to say in my previous post that I guess I didn't say explicitly is that life becomes non sacred because to be sacred is effectively to be beyond human, or above human. We do not sanctify the human. Once we sanctify individual humans they are no longer just humans they are saints. Divine. Same goes for objects.
Once humans have total control and understanding over human life reproduction through means of technology, it no longer becomes sacred. Because if it was sacred then it would not be able to be manipulated in such a complete way by humans. The sanctity of life is materially disproven by the reality of its total manipulation at the hands of humans. In the same way that we no longer revere the moon as a divine object or God but a physical object that we have physically stepped foot on. This isn't an ideological or philosophical disproving. It is "material"
Luke Murphy
No good secular argument for banning it, fetuses don't have consciousness yet, so support legality on human freedom grounds.