The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Jumbo]

It is a dangerous attitude. Ask abolitionists who ran the underground railroad. And yes, I am comparing the two (and I'm sure Jumbo will be along to insult me again).

  

 

What I insulted was the ugly form you used in that post, not you personally/globally. I "insulted" your comment/thought (it's stupid---see I did it again). I'm not  adverse to insulting you in that more "global" and personal sense if I felt it merited and I wanted to take the effort, but even then I'd do it within the rules. 

 

However, your comment (its deliberate implication) went beyond insulting to many good people. But most of them are sadly familiar with abuse/hate/threats---usually from various Christian groups and individuals. I have a tale or two of personal adventures I started to share and decided not to (and I wasn't doing/encouraging abortions ).

 

But you can play the martyr that Jumbo insulted---after you maligned thousands of dedicated health care providers doing far more than aborting fetuses in this awful turf and who live and breathe caring about human lives day after day.

 

As for the "lying" and abolitionist stuff--- imma move on     

 

I'll see you in the next "icky sex" thread. 

 

 

 

 

 

To Benning: I do get you---I just know a lot of good intelligent people who still can't accept abortion under some of the conditions many others can---they're not lunatics or nuts or whackos.

[Larry]

In fairness, I never said the people who oppose it are lunatics. I said the people who are fighting the battle are. Thats both sides. Its  only in the consciousness of a a relatively small minority.

"A very small minority" who keep passing more and more legislation.

"A very small minority" who have spent the last few decades changing the definition of humanity, (and who are close to succeeding), just so they can accomplish their objective. (The objective that's "over".)

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I moved to TX today... Sort of. I'll be chillin' with TWA this weekend.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Burgold]

I moved to TX today... Sort of. I'll be chillin' with TWA this weekend.

You'll be surprised. He's really a pot smoking vegan who listens only to the Bob Dylan station on Sirius XM radio.

[No Excuses]

You'll be surprised. He's really a pot smoking vegan who listens only to the Bob Dylan station on Sirius XM radio.

 

I personally don't think he's a real person but a bot designed by the mods to keep the liberals preoccupied and butthurt.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

You'll be surprised. He's really a pot smoking vegan who listens only to the Bob Dylan station on Sirius XM radio.

He's also a flaming homosexual.

At least, I hope so.

[skinsmarydu]

That was actually the reasoning used in Roe.

Laws prohibiting abortions claimed that they were passed to protect the mother. And the plaintiffs brought scientific evidence showing that abortions in the first two trimesters actually had less medical complications than pregnancy did.

Holy.  I thought I'd never hear it. 

The Truth. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

"A very small minority" who keep passing more and more legislation.

"A very small minority" who have spent the last few decades changing the definition of humanity, (and who are close to succeeding), just so they can accomplish their objective. (The objective that's "over".)

yes, in only a few states.

Then the Supreme Court usually strikes it down.

This is not a fight anymore. We need to move on from it.

Most of the abortion fight takes place in 4 or 5 states from what I have observed.

Edited June 29, 2016 by BenningRoadSkin

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

This is not a fight anymore. We need to move on from it.

The gun control debate is more over than this but I wouldn't move on from it.

[Barney B]

He's also a flaming homosexual.

At least, I hope so.

 

Hey, now. 

 

I saw him first.  

[Larry]

yes, in only a few states.

WaPo: 14 states have passed laws this year making it harder to get an abortion

 

As state legislatures across the country wrap up their 2016 sessions, one of the most active areas of legislating hasn't been red-hot LGBT issues or immigration. It's been the decades-old issue of abortion.

 

And on that issue, social conservatives are on a roll. This year, antiabortion advocates passed some 30 laws in 14 states to make it harder for people to get abortion. Here are a few of the big numbers. A graphic of recent laws is here.

 

 

Antiabortion advocates aren't just celebrating one good year: 2016 marks the fifth straight year they've passed a large number of abortion restrictions. In 2011 alone, Republican legislatures passed some 92 laws limiting abortions. In total, the past five years account for a quarter of all abortion restrictions enacted since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973.

 

 

That WaPo article links to another one: 

 

WaPo:  How restrictive are abortion regulations in your state?

 

It contains a several graphics, and an interesting statistic: 

 

There are 25 states, not including Texas, that have at least one of (the regulations), which were covered in Monday's Supreme Court ruling. That does not include Kansas, which has temporarily enjoined both ambulatory surgical center standards and required hospital privileges, or Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma or Wisconsin, which have temporarily enjoined required hospital privileges.

 

 

Now, if I'm reading that correctly, they're saying that a total of 31 states have passed laws which include at least on of the two Texas restrictions which the court just threw out.  (25 states which are enforcing said rules, and six more which have passed them, but are blocked from enforcing them, so far.) 

 

Now, it seems to me like what you claim is "a very small minority" looks suspiciously like "every state where the Republican Party has control". 

 

And just my opinion, but "the Republican Party" does not strike me as "a very small minority". 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I was going to make the point about refighting the same fights with abortion and gun control but it seems I've been beaten to it.

[Larry]

I was going to make the point about refighting the same fights with abortion and gun control but it seems I've been beaten to it.

Well, in your defense, there are very few points on the topic of abortion or gun control that aren't 20 years old.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I don't feel like I needed defending but thanks.

I just find it humorous that one party gets upset when the other wants to redefine a right but think another right is off limits from further discussion or restriction. I'll let you figure out what side and what issue I'm talking about.

Edited June 29, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

You'll be surprised. He's really a pot smoking vegan who listens only to the Bob Dylan station on Sirius XM radio.

 

only every third sunday

 

I moved to TX today... Sort of. I'll be chillin' with TWA this weekend.

 

Where ya at?

 

 

and are ya cute? 

Certainly. So, I'm certain, would every other person.

But it gets to be a bit fuzzier, when "it's a human life" IS one of the lies.

That, and also a fundamental problem with people loudly asserting that they believe that their Cause is so Holy that it overrides all other morality. Historically, a really dangerous attitude.

 

 

science denier 

[PokerPacker]

and are ya cute? 

I'm adorable, how come you never asked me?

[chipwhich]

Certainly. So, I'm certain, would every other person.

But it gets to be a bit fuzzier, when "it's a human life" IS one of the lies.

That, and also a fundamental problem with people loudly asserting that they believe that their Cause is so Holy that it overrides all other morality. Historically, a really dangerous attitude.

 

I don't know what IS is, but as a teenager sitting through the abortionist sucking sound and watching the bag filled with blood and being thankful that my parents wouldn't find out....well it wasn't about Holy or morality but hiding.  I am pro choice but the process is barbaric and if you haven't lived it you probably shouldn't have an opinion.

 

But you are a white male so my opinion doesn't count.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Good Heavens. First thing tomorrow morning, let's get a few guys together and pull Chip's body down from off the cross.

[skinsmarydu]

I was surprised that this thread went unmade all day yesterday.

I wouldn't even think of speaking for LSF, but I knew that all my ES "folks in the know" were aware, and I really didn't want to start the thread and have the same issues battered around forever.   Again.  (But I'll take my victory lap, thanks.)

C'mon, folks.  This has been settled law for 40+ years.  Liars can't make their issues valid, no matter how hard they twist their panties around.

And you can't polish a turd.  It just smears, and makes everything around it smell worse. 

 

 

 

 

~Still enjoying that victory lap... :lol:vroom, vroom...

Edited June 29, 2016 by skinsmarydu

[China]

 

And you can't polish a turd.  

 

Actually, you can:  http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/polishing-a-turd-minimyth/

[Zguy28]

This case really isn't about abortion, although it came up in the abortion context.   It's more fundamentally about passing laws that claim to be for the purposes of X, while really intending the result of Y (and not hiding or justifying it well enough).  

 

This was a really transparent and dishonest law, and the Court needs to remind legislatures every once in a while that they have the power to look behind the curtain and realistically examine a law's true purposes and real world effects, not just what the legislature claims the purposes are and effects will be.  

I hear this, and it makes sense. Which is why I don't understand why they refused to even hear the case of the Washington law making it illegal for pharmacists to refer to other pharmacies for abortificents because they are Christian pro-life and it goes against their beliefs.

http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/explainer-supreme-court-refuses-to-protect-religious-liberty-of-washington-pharmacists

[Jumbo]

A bit OT and also not.

 

In terms of "not having follow a law cuz it goes against my religious beliefs", keep in mind that there are differing religions, and all kinds of less organized spiritual beliefs/thinking, and various laws and legislation that don't sit well with one or another on that basis. Same with folks of more secular orientation as they deal with all the religiosity around them.

 

Many Mormons felt their religious rights were trampled with the anti-polygamy laws (that so many Christians supported). And imagine Muslims being a powerful enough demographic to maybe change our money to "In Allah We Trust" etc. (use your imagination).

 

You can believe what you want, religiously, here---but as to what you do in accordance with laws, your choice of an organized religion does not give you a "free pass" or even freedom from the larger society agreeing to things you dislike or even hate. You get to put up with it like the rest of us or refuse and pay a penalty until or if you can change it.

 

Society as whole, here, gets the chance to be more than any singular religion, or religions collectively.

 

Personally, I think its wrong and dumb (yet still not a big deal all things considered) that we swear in officials publicly elected to secular positions on a bible (koran, anyone?) or teach  kids in public schools in a pledge that "we're one nation under God"--no, we're not---and that our government is so tied to such still that its on our money etc. It all goes against my beliefs (and those of many others) in more than one important way, but so be it. If it changes through acceptable social processes (and most anyone can be a part of that of course), great. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Reynolds+v.+United+States&oq=Reynolds+v.+United+States&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

 In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories. In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."

 

[Larry]

A bit OT and also not.

And yeah, part of me wants to say that "Your religion is fine, but you still have to follow the laws".

But, I remember reading about a famous SC case. Concerned a woman who was a Seventh Day Adventist. She was fired from her job with a mining company, because she refused to work on a day which her religion said she counln't work on. (Saturday? Sunday? All these religions look alike, to me.)

She applied for unemployment, and was denied, on the grounds that there was work available. (She just would have had to work on the day that her religion says she can't.)

 

Should that person have been denied unemployment, on that grounds? 

 

(And I'll point out:  She wasn't objecting to a law that, say, required her to sell pork.  She was actually demanding that the government give her money which the law said she wasn't entitled to.) 

[TheGreatBuzz]

For the person that says she can't work Sunday, I say tell her the same thing we tell people in the military. We use a well thought out, logical, and time honored phrase. It goes "suck it up, buttercup"

[Larry]

For the person that says she can't work Sunday, I say tell her the same thing we tell people in the military. We use a well thought out, logical, and time honored phrase. It goes "suck it up, buttercup"

 

So, if you want to receive unemployment, then you're required to ignore one of the fundamental precepts of your religion?  (in fact, the one characteristic which actually defines your particular religion?)