SCOTUS hearing on Roe V Wade

[Storm-Chaser]

Wow now you are just making shit up, how Christian of you.

Dude. You have absolutely no credit left. In the face of overwhelming evidence you think this nation was not formed by Christians. If you can't get this premise right, you are the one who is delusional.

What am I making up, exactly?

Take your Christian sharia law crap and get the fuck out of here you piece of shit authoritarian.

You are getting your religions mixed up. No such thing as sharia law in Christianity, unless you can provide some clarity here I'm just going to assume you now have negative credibility. It's pretty hard to come back from that. You are welcome to swear, and hurl insults and get all hot under the collar, but at the end of the day you advocate for the murder of unborn children. I advocate for the preservation of life. One is noble, the other is not. You do the math.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol “noble”, there’s nothing noble about denying a woman the right to have autonomy over her own body.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Dude. You have absolutely no credit left. In the face of overwhelming evidence you think this nation was not formed by Christians. If you can't get this premise right, you are the one who is delusional.

What am I making up, exactly?

You are getting your religions mixed up. No such thing as sharia law in Christianity, unless you can provide some clarity here I'm just going to assume you now have negative credibility. It's pretty hard to come back from that. You are welcome to swear, and hurl insults and get all hot under the collar, but at the end of the day you advocate for the murder of unborn children. I advocate for the preservation of life. One is noble, the other is not. You do the math.

View attachment 53901

Not quite accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

 

[Ajay]

Nope, he pretty much has you nailed. While I have no problem if what you think is your personal belief and one you’ve enforced in your own life, the problem arises when you vote for others who force your beliefs on others.

I’m pro choice myself (not that it matters) but I’ll defend you tooth and nail to make sure you or someone in your family will not be forced to have an abortion. Sadly, I doubt you’d reciprocate the behavior and allow some one to make that choice themselves. Which means you believe that others should adhere to your beliefs and not their own and that’s what’s disturbing and a very anti American value.

I don't have a problem with those who value personal liberty, within the limits of the constitution, above all. I can respect that sort of philosophy even if I don't agree. The greater battle is between those who have strongly opposed ideologies on matters of what is morally right and just. We mostly talk past each other because we don't share any common ground. And it gets pretty pugnacious at times. As far a someone has me nailed, who doesn't even know me, well, that's just lie. It's not like I've written a biography and uploaded to this forum. There's simply a tendency, as with many issues, to lump everyone in the 'other' camp into one basket.

 

[mikeymikec]

Not quite accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

"McCorvey had entered a Catholic boarding school... "

I'm shocked, *shocked* that she might have ended up with pro-life beliefs! Next someone will try to convince me that they teach people to believe in God there.

"... and added that she continued to have abortion-rights beliefs."

take a hike, @Storm-Chaser .

 

[K1052]

A compromise I have long favored, with extremists on either side pushing back that it just isn't right for them.

Part of the problem with this is that the public has no idea when most abortions are performed and why. The other issue is that the people trying to ban it won't be satisfied with anything short of total prohibition including no exceptions for health of the mother, rape, etc which most certainly does not represent a consensus view of voters when they are asked. They'd literally force women to risk their lives bearing non-viable pregnancies.

 

[ch33zw1z]

"McCorvey had entered a Catholic boarding school... "

I'm shocked, *shocked* that she might have ended up with pro-life beliefs! Next someone will try to convince me that they teach people to believe in God there.

"... and added that she continued to have abortion-rights beliefs."

take a hike, @Storm-Chaser .

The entire premise that the founding fathers were religiously influenced AND created a *wink wink* *nod nod* clause in the constitution is a nice red herring that religious authoritarians like to toss around. No no, it says this:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The very first line of the first amendment is pretty clear. Roe vs Wade was decided on consitutional grounds, not religious. That's what they really have a problem with, religious influence not carrying the weight it once did.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that religion in general is corrupt, but not with those who still have faith in God. There is still a remnant. Of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 29 actually held seminary degrees. This nation has Christian roots, but we have turned away from God. The only protection that can keep us safe and sound. And in the absence of God's protection, we only get one thing: A curse from the prince of darkness.

Good God. Where to begin? Do you honestly believe that I am going to buy into your heavily flawed logic here? Or do you expect me to buy into planned parenthoods billion dollar a year murder of unborn/partial birth/newborn babies? And the fact that they then desecrate the body once the murder has been completed? And then sell body parts to the highest bidder? How sick is that? EDIT: Let's just pop this balloon right now.

There is a HUGE hole in this debate if you are advocating for the murder of unborn babies (ie. if you are pro death). Little tip: The only thing that will stop a pro death supporter in his/her tracks is to bring up the imagery of the act of abortion itself. Generally speaking they begin to short circuit when you show them pictures of murdered children that are small enough to fit in the palm of your hand, the most fragile creation on this earth, getting butchered like a piece of meat. It's not a sign that leaves you for a long time, and there is nothing they can say to get around the true, grizzly and homicidal schizophrenia that is planned parenthood.

Do you not realize that procreation is necessary for the viability of mankind? Does that just fly right over your head? You do realize pregnancy is a natural, biological process, right? If you really think leading a baron life alone and selfish is more enriching and redeeming and enthralling than a women who is a mother and grandmother and a great grandmother? Not a snowballs chance in hell would that supposition EVER be true.

First, you can try to call a fetus a baby all you want but there’s no way you actually believe the two are equivalent. Any person who tries to argue that a fetus is the equivalent of a human with all the same rights is either lying to themselves or lying to you.

Second, abortion is a natural process that the body does automatically all the time. It’s called a miscarriage.

Third, something being natural does not in any way mean it is good for humans. Cancer is a naturally occurring process. Uranium is natural. Who gives a shit about natural?

 

[K1052]

Second, abortion is a natural process that the body does automatically all the time. It’s called a miscarriage.

It just occurred to me that the states inclined to ban abortion could well decide to require criminal investigations for miscarriages.

 

[fskimospy]

Part of the problem with this is that the public has no idea when most abortions are performed and why. The other issue is that the people trying to ban it won't be satisfied with anything short of total prohibition including no exceptions for health of the mother, rape, etc which most certainly does not represent a consensus view of voters when they are asked. They'd literally force women to risk their lives bearing non-viable pregnancies.

It’s also worth pointing out that the pro choice position has historically remained about the same while the pro life position has become more and more radical.

A lot of people don’t know this but until around the 1970’s/1980’s most Christian denominations were pretty ambivalent on abortion. The Southern Baptists were even in favor! The pro life movement was launched in large part to protect tax breaks for churches.

 

[eelw]

Lol pro death.

Right, leading a selfish, baron life as a women is so much more redeeming and valuable than any other role that a women might play in this lifetime.

Who’s this chicken using a new account to post his misogynistic comments

 

[shortylickens]

Thank you for this:

What are we forcing women to do exactly? Other than murder their unborn children, I mean? See what I did there?

*facepalm*

View attachment 53896

You wanna stop murdering children?
How about you stop fucking up America so women dont feel like getting abortions?
You ever think about that shit for once in your life?

 

[himkhan]

Lol pro death.



Who’s this chicken using a new account to post his misogynistic comments

Someone ignoring the fact that of the 260 million or so voting age Americans over 75% think that the Right To Rule Women Cult need to sit back in the corner.

Even the Conservative Christian Republicans that make up a good amount of that 75% don't have their heads THAT far up their ass. Just the Radicals.

 

[himkhan]

d p

 

[Ajay]

It’s also worth pointing out that the pro choice position has historically remained about the same while the pro life position has become more and more radical.

A lot of people don’t know this but until around the 1970’s/1980’s most Christian denominations were pretty ambivalent on abortion. The Southern Baptists were even in favor! The pro life movement was launched in large part to protect tax breaks for churches.

I don't know about other churches, but they Catholic church considered the issue in it's earliest days

The earliest explicit teaching against abortion is found in the Didache (The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles). This work (c. 80) is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law and, after the New Testament, the first Christian catechism. The pertinent passage reads: "You shall not slay the child by abortion."

Of course, there was a lesser need for churches to be more strident in their opposition to abortion until it legally became the law of the land in 1973 (in the US) - except for the Baptists, apparently.

 

[Dave_5k]

In related "United" Fascist Theocracy of America news, although with much less fanfare, the Supreme Court agreed this summer to hear a case on whether taxpayers can be mandated to fund religious education. If successful, plaintiffs will force government agencies that provide taxpayer funds for any private schooling to also provide taxpayer funds for religious indoctrination programs (or at least, Christian ones).

The Theocrats already won the argument that if you have a program to fund private schools, you can't exclude religious schools. New case is more explicit on having to include taxpayer funding for schooling that is directly towards religious instruction and to proselytize, which is currently excluded in Maine.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the [current Maine] program, reasoning that the exclusion of religious schools hinged on whether the money was used for religious instruction and to proselytize, rather than simply on whether the school was religious."

However, the Supreme Court agreed to further review to potentially reverse the 1st Circuit (note Supreme Court only chooses to hear arguments in about ~1% of cases appealed to it).

Justices add one religious-rights case to docket but turn down another

Just before departing for their summer recess, the justices on Friday added 10 new cases to their docket for next term, including a high-profile dispute involving public funding for private […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Ajay]

In related "United" Fascist Theocracy of America news, although with much less fanfare, the Supreme Court agreed this summer to hear a case on whether taxpayers can be mandated to fund religious education. If successful, plaintiffs will force government agencies that provide taxpayer funds for any private schooling to also provide taxpayer funds for religious indoctrination programs (or at least, Christian ones).

The Theocrats already won the argument that if you have a program to fund private schools, you can't exclude religious schools. New case is more explicit on having to include taxpayer funding for schooling that is directly towards religious instruction and to proselytize, which is currently excluded in Maine.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the [current Maine] program, reasoning that the exclusion of religious schools hinged on whether the money was used for religious instruction and to proselytize, rather than simply on whether the school was religious."

However, the Supreme Court agreed to further review to potentially reverse the 1st Circuit (note Supreme Court only chooses to hear arguments in about ~1% of cases appealed to it).

Justices add one religious-rights case to docket but turn down another

Just before departing for their summer recess, the justices on Friday added 10 new cases to their docket for next term, including a high-profile dispute involving public funding for private […]

www.scotusblog.com

That's pretty far off topic and worthy of it's own thread, IMHO.

 

[Fenixgoon]

In related "United" Fascist Theocracy of America news, although with much less fanfare, the Supreme Court agreed this summer to hear a case on whether taxpayers can be mandated to fund religious education. If successful, plaintiffs will force government agencies that provide taxpayer funds for any private schooling to also provide taxpayer funds for religious indoctrination programs (or at least, Christian ones).

The Theocrats already won the argument that if you have a program to fund private schools, you can't exclude religious schools. New case is more explicit on having to include taxpayer funding for schooling that is directly towards religious instruction and to proselytize, which is currently excluded in Maine.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the [current Maine] program, reasoning that the exclusion of religious schools hinged on whether the money was used for religious instruction and to proselytize, rather than simply on whether the school was religious."

However, the Supreme Court agreed to further review to potentially reverse the 1st Circuit (note Supreme Court only chooses to hear arguments in about ~1% of cases appealed to it).

Justices add one religious-rights case to docket but turn down another

Just before departing for their summer recess, the justices on Friday added 10 new cases to their docket for next term, including a high-profile dispute involving public funding for private […]

www.scotusblog.com

Can of worms - just wait till a Muslim school applies for funding.
I agree that the state shouldn't provide funds to religious institutions period. However if we're opening the floodgates, everyone is now eligible

 

[MrSquished]

I agree that religion in general is corrupt, but not with those who still have faith in God. There is still a remnant. Of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 29 actually held seminary degrees. This nation has Christian roots, but we have turned away from God. The only protection that can keep us safe and sound. And in the absence of God's protection, we only get one thing: A curse from the prince of darkness.

Good God. Where to begin? Do you honestly believe that I am going to buy into your heavily flawed logic here? Or do you expect me to buy into planned parenthoods billion dollar a year murder of unborn/partial birth/newborn babies? And the fact that they then desecrate the body once the murder has been completed? And then sell body parts to the highest bidder? How sick is that? EDIT: Let's just pop this balloon right now.

There is a HUGE hole in this debate if you are advocating for the murder of unborn babies (ie. if you are pro death). Little tip: The only thing that will stop a pro death supporter in his/her tracks is to bring up the imagery of the act of abortion itself. Generally speaking they begin to short circuit when you show them pictures of murdered children that are small enough to fit in the palm of your hand, the most fragile creation on this earth, getting butchered like a piece of meat. It's not a sign that leaves you for a long time, and there is nothing they can say to get around the true, grizzly and homicidal schizophrenia that is planned parenthood.

Do you not realize that procreation is necessary for the viability of mankind? Does that just fly right over your head? You do realize pregnancy is a natural, biological process, right? If you really think leading a baron life alone and selfish is more enriching and redeeming and enthralling than a women who is a mother and grandmother and a great grandmother? Not a snowballs chance in hell would that supposition EVER be true.

I really don't care what the founding fathers were. Some had slaves. They established a nation where slavery was fine. Women were second class citizens. Men without property couldn't vote. They were regressive in many ways, and those are the ways you religious kooks admire, my whole point. So thanks for verifying that.

Where am I against procreation? I mean you are so nuts in your kooky religious mind you make up these insane arguments.

A zygote or fetus in certain stages is not a baby. It is in your sick mind, but not in reality.

I appreciate this statement as it verifies what I say about insane anti-choice people, it's about keeping a woman in her place:

Right, leading a selfish, baron life as a women is so much more redeeming and valuable than any other role that a women might play in this lifetime.

First of all it's barren, not baron. Second to call a woman selfish, or barren, if she does not want children and implying only a woman having children can redeem her and truly make her valuable in their lifetime, well it goes to show, you are a misogynist pig. Just a nasty nasty person. The whole point of being anti-choice is, as you've demonstrated, to keep women in their place as much as possible. The place where you believe they belong and can only have worth doing.

Disgusting.

You are a backwards regressive Neanderthal trying to take us back hundreds of years in time, and not to the good things of those times.

 

[IronWing]

Can of worms - just wait till a Muslim school applies for funding.
I agree that the state shouldn't provide funds to religious institutions period. However if we're opening the floodgates, everyone is now eligible

I attended a Catholic high school. Even back then, there were folks angling to get public funding for it. My very, very Catholic parents were adamant and outspoken on the issue. They absolutely opposed public funding for Catholic schools for two reasons: 1) it is patently unconstitutional and 2) it would give the government a say in Catholic education. The main reason the Catholics built a private school system parallel to the public system was that they got fed up with Protestantism being taught to their children in the public schools. The separation of church and state protects churches as much as it protects the state.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have a problem with those who value personal liberty, within the limits of the constitution, above all. I can respect that sort of philosophy even if I don't agree. The greater battle is between those who have strongly opposed ideologies on matters of what is morally right and just. We mostly talk past each other because we don't share any common ground. And it gets pretty pugnacious at times. As far a someone has me nailed, who doesn't even know me, well, that's just lie. It's not like I've written a biography and uploaded to this forum. There's simply a tendency, as with many issues, to lump everyone in the 'other' camp into one basket.

For this particular issue there really isn’t a common ground. You either think abortion is murder or you think a woman has autonomy over her body. Both views are incompatible with each other.

Sadly the pro life movement not only doesn’t think a woman has the right to control her own body but they also think their beliefs must be adhered to over everyone else’s beliefs.

You don’t see that though. Instead you frame the issue through your eyes without the slightest thought given to others perspective.

You claim it’s a moral issue, well I think the government shouldn’t be legislating morals because people like you end up violating the rights of others in the name of morality. It’s bad for a free society.

 

[brycejones]

Nobody is forcing them to do anything...; you are not even looking at the source, dude. ie. unprotected sex puts the onus of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the mother. It's her actions that got her pregnant in the first place. Not a Christian praying for the redemption of this nation. You are so far off base here, it's really sad to see.

Right, leading a selfish, baron life as a women is so much more redeeming and valuable than any other role that a women might play in this lifetime.

Wow, authoritarian religious nuts are authoritarian religious nuts regardless of faith.

 

[pmv]

Can of worms - just wait till a Muslim school applies for funding.
I agree that the state shouldn't provide funds to religious institutions period. However if we're opening the floodgates, everyone is now eligible

One heck of a can of worms. I still haven't figured out what the truth was in this affair (I don't, apriori, trust any of those involved, on either side). This is the sort of thing the Supreme Court is taking you towards.

Trojan Horse scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Trojan Horse scandal, also known as "Operation Trojan Horse" or the Trojan Horse affair, refers to a scandal involving claims of an alleged conspiracy[1][2] that there was an organised attempt to introduce an "Islamist" or "Salafist" ethos into several schools in Birmingham, England.[3][4][5] The name, based on the Greek legend, comes from an anonymous letter sent to Birmingham City Council in late 2013, alleged to be from Birmingham "Islamists" detailing how to wrest control of a school, and speculating about expanding the scheme to other cities. The letter was leaked to the press in March 2014. Around a month later, Birmingham City Council claimed that it had received "hundreds" of allegations of plots similar to those illustrated in the letter, some dating back over 20 years.[6] Tahir Alam, former chairman of the Park View Educational Trust which ran three schools in Birmingham, was alleged to have written a 72-page document for the Muslim Council of Britain in 2007 detailing a blueprint for the "Islamisation" of secular state schools

 

[K1052]

Can of worms - just wait till a Muslim school applies for funding.
I agree that the state shouldn't provide funds to religious institutions period. However if we're opening the floodgates, everyone is now eligible

The underlying idea is that the government, duly controlled by conservative Christians, would use the power of the state to prevent that from happening. Various flavors of Christianity to be viewed as proper recipients of such funding. Everybody else? Absolutely not.

 

[abj13]

I don't know about other churches, but they Catholic church considered the issue in it's earliest days
Of course, there was a lesser need for churches to be more strident in their opposition to abortion until it legally became the law of the land in 1973 (in the US) - except for the Baptists, apparently.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Abortion has been rationalized in different ways by the Catholic Church, with some periods of outright bans, while other periods with acceptance up until the timing of "ensoulment." That date had been moved around throughout the centuries, with some of the basis on quickening. Just between Popes Sixtus V and Gregory XIV, they flipped-flopped on the issue in about a five year period. They have been a bit more consistent since the 19th century, but that's different from trying to claim consistency for 2000 years.