OT Roe V Wade In Trouble

[PtldPlatypus]

That's good to hear. It's sad to see the religion of Christianity abused in order to gain control and power, to oppress others of different belief.

Honestly, I don't think the abuse of Christianity has anything to do with belief. People who love power and control will use whatever means are available to establish and maintain it. Sadly, religion seems to be one of the easiest, most effective, and most nefarious options available to be abused for that purpose. There's a reason Jesus' most frequent target wasn't the Romans, but the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[barfo]

People who love power and control will use whatever means are available to establish and maintain it. Sadly, religion seems to be one of the easiest, most effective, and most nefarious options available to be abused for that purpose.

Of course it is - it's built into the design.

Once you have identified people who can be convinced of something as unverifiable as the existence of a deity, then you've identified your target market, and you have a framework that you can use to exploit that market.

barfo

 

[crandc]

Indiana attorney general is proceeding with investigation if doctor who assisted raped 10 year old although it had been verified she complied with all applicable laws. He said he doesn't believe there are many pregnant child rape victims. She invited anyone who doubts to come to her clinic.
Intent to intimidate doctors and big them down with legal fees and endless court appearances so in future raped children won't have anyone to help them.
Punish the sluts!

 

[e_blazer]

My opinion is that those of you who are blaming fundamentalist Christians for overturning Roe v Wade are incorrect. The justices who voted to overturn it are Alito (Catholic), Clarence Thomas (Catholic), Neil Gorsuch (raised Catholic but attends Episcopal church), Brett Kavanaugh (Catholic) and Amy Coney Barrett (Catholic). Chief Justice John Roberts (Catholic) concurred in the judgment only, but would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case (banned abortions after 15 weeks). Catholicism has no connection with or support for fundamentalist protestant denominations. The Catholic Church is obviously staunchly anti-abortion. I don't think that was the primary motivation for overturning Roe v Wade, however. More than anything, those justices are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. They viewed Roe v Wade as unsupported by the language of the Constitution as meant by the authors of that document. I'm certain that they will maintain that viewpoint on other upcoming cases that have nothing to do with reproductive rights. They simply do not want to approve cases that weaken their view of the Constitution and which inappropriately, in their view, take power from State legislatures.

 

[riverman]

My opinion is that those of you who are blaming fundamentalist Christians for overturning Roe v Wade are incorrect. The justices who voted to overturn it are Alito (Catholic), Clarence Thomas (Catholic), Neil Gorsuch (raised Catholic but attends Episcopal church), Brett Kavanaugh (Catholic) and Amy Coney Barrett (Catholic). Chief Justice John Roberts (Catholic) concurred in the judgment only, but would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case (banned abortions after 15 weeks). Catholicism has no connection with or support for fundamentalist protestant denominations. The Catholic Church is obviously staunchly anti-abortion. I don't think that was the primary motivation for overturning Roe v Wade, however. More than anything, those justices are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. They viewed Roe v Wade as unsupported by the language of the Constitution as meant by the authors of that document. I'm certain that they will maintain that viewpoint on other upcoming cases that have nothing to do with reproductive rights. They simply do not want to approve cases that weaken their view of the Constitution and which inappropriately, in their view, take power from State legislatures.

Theologically Catholics are Christians...Sociologically they are not. This is by definition written in the Catholic Leagues homesite.I always thought of Christians as being a blanket title for many churches and organizations representing God, Heaven, Hell, The Bible, Jesus, the afterlife, etc......same with Lutherans, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, etc......fundementalist Christians to me are staunch believers in integrating church and state which in the case of abortion has clearly crossed that line. Close parallel would be the Taliban imposing religious law upon government. Whether Catholic or Protestant ....fundementalist Christians are lobbying for political voices and contol of legislation. Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic..she's pro choice. It's more than just language.

 

[barfo]

My opinion is that those of you who are blaming fundamentalist Christians for overturning Roe v Wade are incorrect. The justices who voted to overturn it are Alito (Catholic), Clarence Thomas (Catholic), Neil Gorsuch (raised Catholic but attends Episcopal church), Brett Kavanaugh (Catholic) and Amy Coney Barrett (Catholic). Chief Justice John Roberts (Catholic) concurred in the judgment only, but would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case (banned abortions after 15 weeks). Catholicism has no connection with or support for fundamentalist protestant denominations. The Catholic Church is obviously staunchly anti-abortion.

Yes.

I don't think that was the primary motivation for overturning Roe v Wade, however. More than anything, those justices are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. They viewed Roe v Wade as unsupported by the language of the Constitution as meant by the authors of that document. I'm certain that they will maintain that viewpoint on other upcoming cases that have nothing to do with reproductive rights. They simply do not want to approve cases that weaken their view of the Constitution and which inappropriately, in their view, take power from State legislatures.

No.

Originalism is a bullshit justification for their desire to drag the country back in time. In reality they are only originalist when it suits their agenda of the moment.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

Yes.



No.

Originalism is a bullshit justification for their desire to drag the country back in time. In reality they are only originalist when it suits their agenda of the moment.

barfo

I never said that they weren't selectively originalist.

 

[theprunetang]

Yes.



No.

Originalism is a bullshit justification for their desire to drag the country back in time. In reality they are only originalist when it suits their agenda of the moment.

barfo

100% this, and especially with all of their most recent rulings. You can tell the started with a conclusion and worked backwards to justify it.

 

[e_blazer]

100% this, and especially with all of their most recent rulings. You can tell the started with a conclusion and worked backwards to justify it.

I'm not sure that that isn't the case with most Supreme Courts. Roe v Wade was certainly decided with a desired end in mind.

 

[theprunetang]

My opinion is that those of you who are blaming fundamentalist Christians for overturning Roe v Wade are incorrect. The justices who voted to overturn it are Alito (Catholic), Clarence Thomas (Catholic), Neil Gorsuch (raised Catholic but attends Episcopal church), Brett Kavanaugh (Catholic) and Amy Coney Barrett (Catholic). Chief Justice John Roberts (Catholic) concurred in the judgment only, but would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case (banned abortions after 15 weeks). Catholicism has no connection with or support for fundamentalist protestant denominations. The Catholic Church is obviously staunchly anti-abortion. I don't think that was the primary motivation for overturning Roe v Wade, however. More than anything, those justices are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. They viewed Roe v Wade as unsupported by the language of the Constitution as meant by the authors of that document. I'm certain that they will maintain that viewpoint on other upcoming cases that have nothing to do with reproductive rights. They simply do not want to approve cases that weaken their view of the Constitution and which inappropriately, in their view, take power from State legislatures.

You are right here in ways. Yes, the Supreme Court decisions are largely based on catholic faith currently, as opposed to precedent. But, the judicial branch isn't the only force at work here. For that, one only needs to turn to state governments, the house, and senate. There are a whole metric shit-ton of "Christian" public officers and employees pushing the same issue through different formats concurrently. This is a huge Christian problem right now.

 

[e_blazer]

100% this, and especially with all of their most recent rulings. You can tell the started with a conclusion and worked backwards to justify it.

Here's a link to the cases decided so far this year:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/21/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2022.html

My point is that whether the cases involved a religious issue or secular issue, basically the same block of justices issued decisions that are originalist in character.

 

[e_blazer]

You are right here in ways. Yes, the Supreme Court decisions are largely based on catholic faith currently, as opposed to precedent. But, the judicial branch isn't the only force at work here. For that, one only needs to turn to state governments, the house, and senate. There are a whole metric shit-ton of "Christian" public officers and employees pushing the same issue through different formats concurrently. This is a huge Christian problem right now.

I'm not a fan of Christians who look to use the legislative branch of state or federal government to push laws that they believe are consistent with their view of scripture. I think that they miss the biblical call to be in the world but not of the world. That said, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that people with religious views aren't to be afforded the opportunity to participate in government. Separation of church and state is not a mandate to disallow religious people to participate in government. It simply says that laws can't be adopted that promote one faith over others. From what I've read, that's likely a good way to challenge the abortion ruling. Denying access to abortion would seem to promote a Christian view of when life begins that is not consistent with all religions.

 

[Phatguysrule]

My opinion is that those of you who are blaming fundamentalist Christians for overturning Roe v Wade are incorrect. The justices who voted to overturn it are Alito (Catholic), Clarence Thomas (Catholic), Neil Gorsuch (raised Catholic but attends Episcopal church), Brett Kavanaugh (Catholic) and Amy Coney Barrett (Catholic). Chief Justice John Roberts (Catholic) concurred in the judgment only, but would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case (banned abortions after 15 weeks). Catholicism has no connection with or support for fundamentalist protestant denominations. The Catholic Church is obviously staunchly anti-abortion. I don't think that was the primary motivation for overturning Roe v Wade, however. More than anything, those justices are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. They viewed Roe v Wade as unsupported by the language of the Constitution as meant by the authors of that document. I'm certain that they will maintain that viewpoint on other upcoming cases that have nothing to do with reproductive rights. They simply do not want to approve cases that weaken their view of the Constitution and which inappropriately, in their view, take power from State legislatures.

State legislatures don't have the right to violate the numerous constitutional emendments necessary to restrict or enforce restrictions on abortions. They could possibly go after the doctor, but not the patient.

The constitution doesn't even apply to anybody until they are born, according to the specific language in used in Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Further, they overturned a SCOTUS ruling they all said (under oath) was settled law which should be respected.

There can be no logic found here. They are doing this based on extremist beliefs.

And if every other Christian sect wants to seperate themselves from this ruling and the catholics who voted on it they are welcome to do so loudly and publicly.

Then once all the other sects of Christianity agree they are an extremist cult we can get their tax free status thrown out.

But that groundswell of opposition by other Christian sects will never get started. Because they mostly agree with the catholics.

Which is why they are being held just as accountable.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not a fan of Christians who look to use the legislative branch of state or federal government to push laws that they believe are consistent with their view of scripture. I think that they miss the biblical call to be in the world but not of the world. That said, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that people with religious views aren't to be afforded the opportunity to participate in government. Separation of church and state is not a mandate to disallow religious people to participate in government. It simply says that laws can't be adopted that promote one faith over others. From what I've read, that's likely a good way to challenge the abortion ruling. Denying access to abortion would seem to promote a Christian view of when life begins that is not consistent with all religions.

Yes. Another part of the reason Christians are being vilified here.

 

[beast blazer]

Doctors are concerned that the anti woman laws being passed in state after state could complicate child abuse reporting. Although reporting suspected child abuse is mandatory, doctors fear the information being used to track minors who are taken to free states to have abortions. Especially when laws are passed banning such travel.

They really love fertilized eggs and rapists. Raped children not do much.

Abortion is the worst kind of child abuse. By your logic, allowing states to pass laws against child abuse is anti parent.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Abortion is the worst kind of child abuse. By your logic, allowing states to pass laws against child abuse is anti parent.

Data disagrees with you. There is far more abuse of children, including violent crime and murder when abortion is outlawed.

The rates for all of these drop when abortion is legalized.

"We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg...te that crime fell,crime in the early 1990s."

 

[e_blazer]

Yes. Another part of the reason Christians are being vilified here.

Are you okay with stereotypically vilifying all classifications of people, or just Christians?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Are you okay with stereotypically vilifying all classifications of people, or just Christians?

I'm not vilifying them. I'm saying the natural result of this overreach committed (and largely supported) by followers of Jesus Christ is that they will be vilified harshly.

As all Germans were because they didn't stop the Nazis before they became a problem.

 

[e_blazer]

State legislatures don't have the right to violate the numerous constitutional emendments necessary to restrict or enforce restrictions on abortions. They could possibly go after the doctor, but not the patient.

The constitution doesn't even apply to anybody until they are born, according to the specific language in used in Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads

Further, they overturned a SCOTUS ruling they all said (under oath) was settled law which should be respected.

There can be no logic found here. They are doing this based on extremist beliefs.

And if every other Christian sect wants to seperate themselves from this ruling and the catholics who voted on it they are welcome to do so loudly and publicly.

Then once all the other sects of Christianity agree they are an extremist cult we can get their tax free status thrown out.

But that groundswell of opposition by other Christian sects will never get started. Because they mostly agree with the catholics.

Which is why they are being held just as accountable.

I'm not defending the SCOTUS decision. I'm simply noting that the grounds on which the decision was made were that Roe v. Wade had no basis in the US Constitution. Obviously, a more liberal court found differently. The rest of your statement above is, frankly, pure gibberish.

 

[e_blazer]

Politics and religion are two topics that almost always result in nothing positive being resolved. I'm not surprised that so many people are angry about the recent SCOTUS decision. As I've said multiple times, I don't support that decision. That being said, I'm making my exit from this discussion.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not defending the SCOTUS decision. I'm simply noting that the grounds on which the decision was made were that Roe v. Wade had no basis in the US Constitution. Obviously, a more liberal court found differently.

I understand that, and appreciate the explanation. But that's just the excuse they used.

The rest of your statement above is, frankly, pure gibberish.

Thanks. The "getting their tax free status revoked" part was sarcasm.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Politics and religion are two topics that almost always result in nothing positive being resolved. I'm not surprised that so many people are angry about the recent SCOTUS decision. As I've said multiple times, I don't support that decision. That being said, I'm making my exit from this discussion.

Unfortunately politics is the the only way this grave injustice can be resolved.

 

[Stevenson]

I'm not defending the SCOTUS decision. I'm simply noting that the grounds on which the decision was made were that Roe v. Wade had no basis in the US Constitution. Obviously, a more liberal court found differently. The rest of your statement above is, frankly, pure gibberish.

But you know that's BS, right?

While "privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, the Griswold Court (by a 7-2 margin) found that it's inherent in various amendments. "Griswold v. Connecticut protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction."

The same constitutional rights that says you can use a rubber or other contraception so as to not impregnate a woman is the same right that says a woman can control her own body.

Do you have that right? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes. It is constitutional? Yes. "No basis in the constitution" - speaking of pure gibberish.

 

[theprunetang]

Are you okay with stereotypically vilifying all classifications of people, or just Christians?

Don't play the victim here. You are better than that. I appreciate your back and forth here. But right NOW. AS WE SPEAK, there are Christians in this nation, and a large group I might add, that are actively trying to turn America into a fascist nazi-esque authoritarian shit hole. They have taken over the national republican party. Is every Christian out there a part of it? No. Not even close. But I don't hear these decent thoughtful Christians making much of a fuss about these absolutely repugnant people representing them. And a large percentage of them will continue voting for them in local and national elections.

 

[theprunetang]

Don't play the victim here. You are better than that. I appreciate your back and forth here. But right NOW. AS WE SPEAK, there are Christians in this nation, and a large group I might add, that are actively trying to turn America into a fascist nazi-esque authoritarian shit hole. They have taken over the national republican party. Is every Christian out there a part of it? No. Not even close. But I don't hear these decent thoughtful Christians making much of a fuss about these absolutely repugnant people representing them. And a large percentage of them will continue voting for them in local and national elections.

I'll add that once confronted with this, so far every good Christian I know has either walked away from the conversation or told me it isn't on them to correct the perception of Christians in our country. So, until some people step up, I'm going to keep calling them out. Not because I dislike you or them, but because you need to hear it.

Best of luck to us all.

 

[e_blazer]

I'll add that once confronted with this, so far every good Christian I know has either walked away from the conversation or told me it isn't on them to correct the perception of Christians in our country. So, until some people step up, I'm going to keep calling them out. Not because I dislike you or them, but because you need to hear it.

Best of luck to us all.

All right, Pruny. Let’s continue the conversation. I’m not sure where we’ll get to, but I’m willing to talk more. I can’t do it today because we’re taking grandkids to the beach for the day. I will leave you with this link for you to ponder regarding regional differences in religiosity in this country. I think the data shows that the Bible Belt is a vastly different place than the west coast and New England when it comes to the prevalence of church life in the population. I also think that there are significant differences in doctrine and culture that influence how people identifying as Christian view the world. The South is an area that once managed to pervert their faith to justify slavery. Much of what you find distasteful about “Christian politics” is still specific to that region. The notion that Christians from other regions are likely to make major inroads in changing the way those folks think seems to me dubious at best.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232223/religious-regions.aspx

 

[crandc]

Kaiser Foundation reports a big surge in women getting sterilized.

 

[theprunetang]

All right, Pruny. Let’s continue the conversation. I’m not sure where we’ll get to, but I’m willing to talk more. I can’t do it today because we’re taking grandkids to the beach for the day. I will leave you with this link for you to ponder regarding regional differences in religiosity in this country. I think the data shows that the Bible Belt is a vastly different place than the west coast and New England when it comes to the prevalence of church life in the population. I also think that there are significant differences in doctrine and culture that influence how people identifying as Christian view the world. The South is an area that once managed to pervert their faith to justify slavery. Much of what you find distasteful about “Christian politics” is still specific to that region. The notion that Christians from other regions are likely to make major inroads in changing the way those folks think seems to me dubious at best.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232223/religious-regions.aspx

I am also pretty busy at work at the moment. Making a mental note to come back and harass you further... ummm.... I mean uh... come back and read further to put critical thinking skills to use. Haha

 

[ABM]

All right, Pruny. Let’s continue the conversation. I’m not sure where we’ll get to, but I’m willing to talk more. I can’t do it today because we’re taking grandkids to the beach for the day. I will leave you with this link for you to ponder regarding regional differences in religiosity in this country. I think the data shows that the Bible Belt is a vastly different place than the west coast and New England when it comes to the prevalence of church life in the population. I also think that there are significant differences in doctrine and culture that influence how people identifying as Christian view the world. The South is an area that once managed to pervert their faith to justify slavery. Much of what you find distasteful about “Christian politics” is still specific to that region. The notion that Christians from other regions are likely to make major inroads in changing the way those folks think seems to me dubious at best.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232223/religious-regions.aspx

These stats show mormons, among other so-called religious groups. Hmmmm.....

 

[Phatguysrule]

All right, Pruny. Let’s continue the conversation. I’m not sure where we’ll get to, but I’m willing to talk more. I can’t do it today because we’re taking grandkids to the beach for the day. I will leave you with this link for you to ponder regarding regional differences in religiosity in this country. I think the data shows that the Bible Belt is a vastly different place than the west coast and New England when it comes to the prevalence of church life in the population. I also think that there are significant differences in doctrine and culture that influence how people identifying as Christian view the world. The South is an area that once managed to pervert their faith to justify slavery. Much of what you find distasteful about “Christian politics” is still specific to that region. The notion that Christians from other regions are likely to make major inroads in changing the way those folks think seems to me dubious at best.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232223/religious-regions.aspx

I don't think other Christians need to change the way the the extremists think, just be vocal about how wrong they are. Very vocal.

Similar to how DeSantis should be very vocal about not supporting, or wanting the support of, Nazis.

Racists and bigots SHOULD be shouted down before they can cause harm.

Again, if people do not condemn things they can be associated with, that association will be made. The greater the harm caused, the more harmful the association is likely to be.