u/Evolvedthoughts23

Abortion is not just “ending support.” It is an act that deliberately ends the life of a human life who is not an attacker.

Pregnancy is the normal, temporary result of creating that dependent human; not a forced kidnapping by a stranger.
Lethally taking out this life that is depending on said woman shouldn’t be ok just because the government says it’s legal to do so in a state.

We reject that idea with newborns; consistency applies the same standard earlier. Even if the dependency is unwanted, we still don’t allow parents to kill a newborn who depends on them. The same principle applies before birth.

I feel like if we start trying to interpret scientific terms as hateful terms, we would be going down a path where speech is seriously being controlled. I’ve asked people from the lgbtq community, and about 97 % of all responses were that this is transphobic behavior, and I have to respectfully disagree.

People are allowed to be offended by whatever they want in life, but that doesn’t mean that the thing that offended you is automatically wrong. Maybe you’re just being sensitive, or a bit extreme.

With that being said, people very well can be offended by something, and be completely justified for doing so. But something like labeling a term like biological as a hateful term when referencing men and women is very much extreme, and just isn’t true.

Am I wrong?

The claim that “God does not exist because there is insufficient evidence” treats human standards of verification as the ultimate test of reality. That standard is neither necessary nor appropriate when the subject is a transcendent Creator.

Consider a person who is sexually assaulted with no witnesses present. The assault occurred. The victim knows it occurred and can truthfully report it. Yet if the only accepted criterion is external, publicly verifiable proof, many will conclude the event never happened. The absence of evidence does not erase the fact; it only limits what outsiders can confirm. Truth and demonstrability are not identical.

The same distinction applies to God. Christian theology holds that God is not a finite object inside the universe that can be weighed, measured, or repeatedly tested under laboratory conditions. He is the ground of the universe itself—the necessary being on whom all contingent reality depends. Requiring Him to submit to the same evidentiary rules we apply to ordinary physical events is to force the Creator into categories designed for creatures. That demand is not neutral inquiry; it is an attempt to redefine God according to human limitations.

In conclusion, the absence of the kind of evidence some demand does not disprove God any more than the absence of witnesses disproves an assault that actually took place. Reality is not obligated to conform to the tests we invent. Treating evidence as the final arbiter of God’s existence is therefore both philosophically overreaching and theologically inverted: it attempts to subject the Creator to the criteria of the created. God exists independently of our ability—or inability—to produce the proof some require.

As a woman, I am attracted to biological men. I know cisgender men who are only attracted to biological women. For those who would label this as transphobic behavior, I have to disagree. This is simply one’s preference. People like who they like.

It’s it to say trans women can’t be trans women, or trans men can’t be trans men. I’m simply saying that from a biological aspect, there are people that have preferences that can potentially stem from natural body genitals/genitalia. And I put emphasis on the word, (preference), as this doesn’t stem from hate.

Am I wrong?