Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I still don't understand why a politician's religious beliefs causing them to vote a certain way is more alarming than the same politician's non-religious beliefs influencing them.

What's the difference?

I already directly answered this.

Because one's foundational beliefs (that influence their voting) are based on supernatural zaniness with zero evidence.....and the other's foundational beliefs are based in the reality we all share.

The abortion thing is easy for me.  There's a reason the word fetus exists.

If the fetus could come out and survive on its own, you have an argument, and that's largely the 3rd trimester.  Any attempt at legislating before then is simply taking your subjective ethics and applying it to other people, which is wrong.

Even the 15 week idea is perfect fine, and should be for both 'sides.'  But one side religiousizes the damn thing and wants life to begin when the guy starts breathing hard in the act.

It's more bullshit.  Thanks religion.

And the other "side" supports end of term abortion. How do you feel about that? More bullshit, yes?

According to a 2023 National Public Opinion Reference Survey, 4% of US adults identify as atheists. This is up from 2% in 2011, and sociologists say that the percentage of atheists in the US has remained steady at 3–4% for over 80 years.

It comes from a place of caring, believe it or not.  They've imprisoned themselves (or really, theiir family/community imprisoned them as children) and the key to get out is well within reach. 

Eh. I got over my desire to prove religious people wrong in my teens. There's no point. 

I took a "Philosophy of Religion" class for my minor in college. The first half of the semester was all the logical arguments for the existence of God. The last half was all the logical arguments against the existence of God. Every argument, on both sides, is flawed. You can't prove or disprove God logically IMHO.

So we're left with belief. And for a lot of people, belief=identity. So when you find a religious person and try to argue that they're wrong about their belief, to them you're attacking a core portion of their very identity. I've found that doesn't really work well; it has a tendency to piss them off too. (Note: belief=identity isn't limited to religion. It's but one example.)

I'll argue against them all day when they try to encode their religious beliefs into laws which restrict my (or anyone else's) freedom. But I'm not going to ridicule them or try to change their belief. I have better things to do. 

Eh. I got over my desire to prove religious people wrong in my teens. There's no point.

I took a "Philosophy of Religion" class for my minor in college. The first half of the semester was all the logical arguments for the existence of God. The last half was all the logical arguments against the existence of God. Every argument, on both sides, is flawed. You can't prove or disprove God logically IMHO.

So we're left with belief. And for a lot of people, belief=identity. So when you find a religious person and try to argue that they're wrong about their belief, to them you're attacking a core portion of their very identity. I've found that doesn't really work well; it has a tendency to piss them off too. (Note: belief=identity isn't limited to religion. It's but one example.)

I'll argue against them all day when they try to encode their religious beliefs into laws which restrict my (or anyone else's) freedom. But I'm not going to ridicule them or try to change their belief. I have better things to do.

Yeah, it is a waste of time....but if you reach just one person..... lol.
Meh, I try to ridicule the idea and not the person.  But when a person literally has no evidence and insists that I'm the crazy one, nope.  
When a person stops believing in a god, they didn't suddenly become smarter.  They just are no longer convinced.  I get that.  
I mostly try to get them to see that they use their reason and prudence in every other aspect of their lives....except religion.  I simply don't see any reason to suspend one's reason for that.  

It's probably 2nd, right behind $$$.

And the other "side" supports end of term abortion. How do you feel about that? More bullshit, yes?

By definition the two sides have to be hardliners about it. 

If the Religious Right allows for abortion at any point beyond conception, they are saying there's a point at which that's not "a baby" and not deserving of protection. And in doing so, they have to be able to determine when that changes. They can't really do that, and so the point at which the protection of "the baby" and the rights of the mother balance becomes political. Any retreat from "begins at conception" can be a slippery slope towards being allowed up until 9 months. 

If the Secular Left admits at any point prior to birth that what's in the belly is a "a baby" deserving of protection, then they become limited by the same definitional problem of when that flips. And with medical science learning more and more about what might happen in some of the early (pre 15 week) gestational periods, any retreat from "when you see the head" can be a slippery slope to not having any abortions because you might not be able to get it done since you didn't even know you were pregnant by which time the limit kicks in.  

Both sides are terrified of trying to define some point in between, because it's possible that the definition point is going to be somewhere they don't like it to be. It's either allowing lots of abortions (pissing off the Right) or not functionally allowing any/many abortions (pissing off the Left).