Is there any truth to this?

It's mainly just because it isn't relevant to them and they don't think about it (old testament).
It's easy to be wrong about and justify what isn't relevant to you.

This is exactly why there are legitemate flat earth believers and hollow earth believers, etc, etc. It just doesn't actually make a difference to their day to day life that the evidence is all against them.

Why don't you actually read the bible?

>How does the church invalidate things like that?

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law
youtube.com/watch?v=sDQQ0U8FHAE

Horizontal Gene Transfer is a thing

Historically, religion was incredibly useful to deter unsound behavior.

For example, the people in your village not washing their hands had bad things happen to them. You had no fucking idea bacteria existed and if you did and tried to explain it to them they would tell you to fuck right off. So you say "God will punish those who don't wash hands!" and that grabs everyone's attention.

Homosexuals have always had high rates of STDs and obviously can't procreate, so the leaders thought "if we don't nip this in the bud, we aren't going to last as a tribe". Tattoos spread a lot of infectious diseases. Certain types of meat that aren't handled properly will make you sick. Polyamory caused a lot of STDs and social problems, etc.

A lot of the bad side effects of this behavior has been alleviated with better technology such as condoms, and so religious laws fall wayside or get reinterpreted to align with contemporary society. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if murder becomes socially acceptable once we start cloning and eugenics.

Whoever wrote that misinterpreted the study. The full paper essentially says that if a woman gets pregnant, her body carries and sustains a few of her child's cells throughout the woman's lifetime. If the baby was a boy, she carries a few parts per million of male cells. For women without sons, it says RIGHT THERE in the conclusion statement that those male cells are from aborted baby boys and from their own mothers who had been pregnant with boys before.

The guy in the image goes step further and says that male microchimerism will come from sperm cells, which is patently untrue. A woman's immune system attacks sperm cells as it would any other fairly common foreign invader. DNA from sperm is as ingrained in her as the DNA of any food she's eaten, infections she's gotten, and pollen/spores she's breathed in.

The study is credible, but the poster is talking out of his ass.

Yeah, you pretty much nail on the head. The weird laws in the old testament make a lot of sense in a 3000-year-old context. When you don't regularly bathe the foreskin can get shit trapped in it, cause infection, and result in you being completely sterilized. So circumcision was introduced in these desert climates as a remedy. The ancients weren't as dumb as most people think.

Even the "no mixed-clothing fiber" rule makes sense, because in small tribal societies you identify outsiders by the clothes they wear. If everyone in your village wears wool and some guy comes in wearing linen, you can keep close track of them easily. People who wear "outsider clothes" are thus shunned.

>Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if murder becomes socially acceptable once we start cloning and eugenics.

Heck, from a pro-lifer perspective it already is, since making human embryos for research is becoming more and more acceptable.

Can you imagine how bad it is to be a pro-lifer?
You literally think there's a baby holocaust every 2 or 3 years.
And the only difference is whether or not you believe baby's have souls.

Surprised there aren't more abortion clinic bombers

Abortion has always been aimed at minorities to diminish their populations. Planned Parenthood was birthed from the Eugenics Society of America, who made their agenda quite clear.

I find it just as baffling that the BLM crowd aren't torching abortion clinics, since they kill way more blacks than police do.

I'm pro-life, but I just think everyone deserves an opportunity at life. I'm black if you haven't guessed by now.

Who cares if 363,705 blacks die annually to abortion? At least that only accounts of [math]10^{-4}[/math] of all black babies born.

How would you feel if when in 2050 when whites are a minority, their population was shrinking to extinction because more whites were being aborted than birthed?

Abortion is an option, it is still up to individuals on whether or not they choose to make that decision. If abortion were mandatory people would be fighting it as well.

The value in abortion is that it allows individuals to have more control in managing their lives. Saying that abortion is used by minorities disproportionately is a double edged sword since taking it away would be disproportionately affecting the control that minorities have over their lives.

It's fairly clear from the structure of your argument that you are posing it with motives distinct from the ones you claim it represents.

That's actually happening though, and I don't really care because chances are I'll be dead by then.

Sure, it gives them control. But at the cost of a life.

>well he was going to be born in poverty and would probably end up in jail or dead in gang violence

Doesn't matter, it still deserves a right to life. The mother made the decision to have sex, fully aware of the possibility of pregnancy. They had the control to stop having sex, or to use contraceptives, and chose not to use them.

I think the only time it should be acceptable to consider is when the life of the mother is at risk.

don't know why I said "if," since you're right.

Most people these days don't consider embryos to be people

Because I don't think brainwashing/programming is impossible and a book could do it especially if you are emotionally invested in reading it.

If I read it I would probably just be as a work of fiction and honestly the few pages I have read of my own volition were very boring.

I'm unaware of any evidence that brainwashing is a real thing. The Korean War captives who made anti-US statements were just coerced. Members of crazy religious movements are the people crazy enough to join voluntarily.

Could this be used as some sort of virginity test? Traditionally it has been the hymen, but if she has male DNA inside her that could be used as evidence against a woman's virginity, especially if the male DNA is the DNA of a man she has been with.

not a biofag but just wondering

No.

If her mother was ever pregnant with a boy beforehand, for instance if she had an older brother or if a male twin failed to form, that means a small quantity of his cells will be present in her body because her mother passes those cells on to her before she's even born. Then, there's the possibility that those cells she got from her older brother will pass on to her own child before that child is born. It's not a foolproof virginity test by any means.