The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[tshile]

On 8/2/2022 at 4:49 PM, PleaseBlitz said:

which had been a bedrock constitutional and societal principal since the nation was founded

Um. I realize it’s supposed to have been but I feel like our history is full of Christian’s imposing their morals and literally using the Bible as the justification. 
 

In practice it doesn’t feel like it’s been the bedrock and suddenly there’s this radical change 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

will voters who are pro choice vote those republicans out in state legislatures?

Will they successfully vote them out?  

[mcsluggo]

12 hours ago, tshile said:

You’re only both correct if she also advocates for policies to help the poor or otherwise disadvantaged (which extends to dealing with racism and sexism)

 

if the only guardrails on society you want are against allowing for abortions, then you’re not a Christian carrying forward the word of your God, you’re just imposing your specific morals on others. 

 

the Christian voting block has clearly demonstrated that they don't actually care about the issues Jesus cared about.   There can be zero debate about that. 

[Fergasun]

Individuals voting their philosophies/morals driven by their ardent religious beliefs is not a violation of some separation of church and state concept. 

 

The issue with Christian voters are there has been a successful push to capture churches by one political party and that party are hyperfocusses their vote on abortion, homosexuality, pot and a bunch of BS, while ignoring the big issues in American society.  

 

All you have to know is Christians elected and supported multi-sexual-aasaulting, cheating on his wife while pregnant Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton whose "biggest crimes" were greed and ambition... or maybe she was just an unattractive lady.  DJT attributes were that his greed and ambition weren't the worst of his vices?  

 

But many Christians (maybe my wife too) would say it was worth it to ban abortion.  Even though they are all missing the eviscerstion of a non-partisan, non-political Supreme Court... but who cares about Constitutional norms.  

 

 

 

 

[redskinss]

18 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Yea, if you name someone Mercedes you must be a Dumas.

True story, I went to school with a guy named Jason Benz.

Swear to God he named his daughter Mercedes. 

[The Sisko]

On 8/2/2022 at 4:04 PM, Fergasun said:

We had a family discusssion on this and essentially my wife and I have different philosiphies as Christians.  This debate or discussion is never held by conservatives, but I think it is important and our teenagers listened to the discussion we had. 

 

My philosophy is that society should be more free/"liberal" because God allows free-will and he doesn't want people to follow him out of any motive but free-will and choice.  People should not be restrained from bad decisions and choices. Besides, when people make bad choices -- when they turn toward God and repent, their forgiveness is greater (this is not talking about.Christians abusing this to sin, but people who have genuinely gone down the wrong path).  My ideal situation is one where abortion is legal, but no one gets one.  if people do choose abortion I want it done safely. 

 

Her philosphy is that as Christians we should push for guard-rails in society that keep people from going over certain boundaries.  Its universally accepted that murder is evil.  Especially since we have a moral teacher in Jesus, Christians should work to protect people from making bad choices and stand on the moral authority of the Bible, so its okay to democratically institute abortion bans.  Her ideal situation is that laws will guide behavior and people will follow the laws.  

 

I can't help but think that both of us are correct in some form and we are discussing from the front and back of a similar coin... but the laws in society we advocate for will end up on different sides.

Aside from the issue of what makes Xtianity so special as to be the religion chosen to provide the guardrails, I can't help but wonder why this is the only "guardrails" issue. If that's her position and the position of most, if not all of the 'Muricun Taliban, why wouldn't they also be pushing just as hard for guardrails to prevent other sins like remarrying after divorce, the liberation of slaves, masturbation, etc.? Oh wait, after they've killed and maimed a bunch of women, I guess those are next on the agenda.

 

On 8/3/2022 at 6:30 AM, bearrock said:

 

Referendum was on the ballot because Kansas State Supreme Court held that the state constitution protects the right to choose.  Until that's overturned governor doesn't matter.

It doesn't have to be overturned. They can make abortions awfully hard to get to the point that they're effectively outlawed even if still technically legal. It's that whole rights in name only thing that the Fascists have been doing for years.

Edited August 4, 2022 by The Sisko

[86 Snyder]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Individuals voting their philosophies/morals driven by their ardent religious beliefs is not a violation of some separation of church and state concept. 

 

 

 

 

What in goddam **** is it then sir?

 

Its actually really simple.  One group wants everyone to fit inside the vin diagram they live within, defined by their morals, which usually come from religious background.  Namely, christianity.  The other group wants policies that allow for two, three, four, etc vin diagrams to all exist side by side under the umbrella of national policy.

 

When you vote for people that are plainly stating they want to impose those beliefs on others, simply because you have the same beliefs as defined by your religion, you are voting for a church state.

 

You only think this is fine because you belong to the majority religion.  If you were Hindu, Atheist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc, you would likely feel differently.

 

This is precisely the problem with having platforms based on a particular religion.  OF COURSE the people of that religion are going to think they should vote that way. 
 

A counter example: I personally think all the gender stuff going on right now is a little over the top and frankly, I’m not sure how to feel about it.  But guess what?  I support trans rights and, to simplify things for the sake of this argument, would vote for any singular policy protecting trans rights, even though I don’t care to promote my pronouns or be asked for them or hear what Demi Lovato feels like today or have conservative assholes complain about it on twitter all day.  You know why?  Because I can recognize that it has nothing to do with me and want policies that live and let live.

 

And by the way….Most Christians believe an aborted child would have a one way ticket to heaven anyway.  ISNT THAT THE ****ING GOAL????  This world is all practice anyway right?  None of it matters rather than to sort heaven from hell?  Well congratulations, you just got the shortest shortcut there is.  Abortion is actually a favor.  And if you don’t believe that??  You think they go to hell to burn for all eternity?  What kind of asshole god would act such a way?
Perhaps this speaks more to the absurdity of religion in general, but the earlier point remains.

 

Voting based on religious believes is abso-****ing-lutely NOT separation of church and state.  And I do not expect religious people to remotely begin to grasp this very simple concept either.

[China]

On 5/9/2022 at 9:42 AM, Fergasun said:

But don't think for a second that same-sex marriage is not up next -- because next to abortion and the sacredness of life, the sanctity of marriage is the next item up.  

 

 

The Christian Right Fires A Warning Shot At Senate Republicans

 

After passing the House with the support of 47 Republicans, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect marriage rights for same-sex couples if the Supreme Court were to overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, faces much dimmer prospects in the Senate. There is one reason why: the Christian right still controls the Republican Party. Movement leaders know it took 50 years to reverse Roe, and are committed to a similar strategy to undermine and eventually overturn Obergefell. With abundant clues in the Supreme Court’s June decision overturning Roe that LGBTQ rights could be next on the chopping block, it is unimaginable that movement leaders would sink that goal by allowing this bill to become law.

 

Republican senators are keenly aware of this. That is why South Dakota’s John Thune and Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy accused Democrats of introducing the bill to distract from inflation. It is why Florida’s Marco Rubio called it “a stupid waste of time,” and claimed gay Floridians are “pissed off” about something else — high gas prices. And it is why Maine’s Susan Collins, who was one of the bill’s four original Republican supporters, came up with the laughing-crying emoji argument that, because Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had struck a surprise deal on Democratic legislative priorities late last month, she would struggle to win fellow Republicans’ support for the marriage bill. “[I]t was a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way,” she told HuffPost.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

I think they should allow a roll call vote on that amendment. 

[Long n Left]

The “Christian Right” is neither

[Ball Security]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, Long n Left said:

The “Christian Right” is neither

 

Same line was used for the Moral Majority. Same asshats, different era. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[88Comrade2000]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Admiring the court ruling that in Florida, 16 year old girls are not mature enough to decide whether they want to be pregnant.  

[China]

So people aren't allowed to decide for themselves?  Sounds like par for the course.

 

W.Va. governor: Voters shouldn't decide abortion access issue

 

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has rejected a suggestion by Democratic lawmakers to let voters decide whether abortion should continue to be allowed in the state.

 

The Republican governor said the state's abortion law falls under the scrutiny of the Legislature and the attorney general.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Michigan judge issues indefinite ban on criminalizing abortions in key Michigan counties

 

A Michigan judge ruled Friday prosecutors in the state's largest counties are barred from bringing criminal charges for months to come under a state law banning most abortions. 

 

The decision from Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Cunningham comes after two days of hearings and means every county in Michigan with an abortion clinic is at least temporarily immune from the threat of criminal prosecutions over abortion procedures. 

 

“As currently applied, the court finds (the abortion law) is chilling and dangerous to our state's population of childbearing people and the medical professionals who care for them,” Cunningham said.

 

"The harm to the body of women and people capable of pregnancy in not issuing the injunction could not be more real, clear, present and dangerous to the court." 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Ball Security]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]