US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[chemiclord]

Not really so much a debate as me noting the assertion that the Religious Right makes about life starts at conception isn't even particularly supported by the religious texts they claim to believe in, and that the very God they supposedly worship carves out many examples of killing unborn children for a variety of reasons.

Are they thusly claiming their God is wrong and fallible?

[Nick Pappageorgio]

Looking at that book for answers, and claiming you found them, is just as stupid when they do it.

That you read a passage….and think you have “owned” them at their own game, is impressively idiotic.

This issue is about people’s rights to medical autonomy…I don’t see how the imaginary man in the sky plays into it. The Bible (much like the constitution) is a document meant to control it’s followers through vague passages that mean different things to different people and have to be “interpreted” by “experts”.

It appears to me that the members of the Supreme Court seem to be entirely too fixated on interpreting the Constitution through the lens of the Bible (something that is strictly verboten by the constitution)…it can only end badly. It’s basically how the Islamic countries do it.

At least we’ll still have the 2nd amendment, I have a feeling we’re gonna need it.

[-Deborah-]

Not really so much a debate as me noting the assertion that the Religious Right makes about life starts at conception isn't even particularly supported by the religious texts they claim to believe in, and that the very God they supposedly worship carves out many examples of killing unborn children for a variety of reasons.

Are they thusly claiming their God is wrong and fallible?

Regardless, the notion about life starting at conception is a RELIGIOUS opinion and has no business being put into law.

[Marko69]

I have to admit that I am getting a kick out of Chemiclord destroying Da Geezer with his own book. Ha!

Yes, i’ll be second to admit that its a tad amusing.

And i think i know that Chemiclord would be the first to say “FK OFF” when he gets praise, (dont disappoint me now!)……. But the knowledge (i’d say) WITHOUT googling is probably 2nd to none. I’d like to say, love your posts chemic you knowledgable but opinionated cuntoid!!

Hand up that i didnt know ANY of those eye opening bible verses. Fkn hell……. You dont get taught that in between dick sucking @ holy school!

[Futureshock]

NFL stays silent on elimination of 50-year Constitutional right

Posted by Mike Florio on June 27, 2022, 9:03 AM EDT

Getty Images

Regardless of any specific individual’s views on abortion, for 50 years the U.S. Constitution regarded the decision as a fundamental privacy right for American citizens. It no longer does, according to the six unelected politicians who have decided to take it away with the stroke of a pen.

The NFL, which has spent considerable time and money in recent years attracting, developing, and expanding its female fan base, has been strangely silent on the issue. In all respects. There has been no statement. No tweet. No expression of support for the employees of teams in the 22 states in which the NFL does business, if those individuals must travel to other states in order to implement an intensely personal and inherently difficult heath-care decision.

We sent an email to the league on Sunday asking whether there will be any comment on Friday’s ruling. There was no response.

The NBA and WNBA, in contrast, promptly spoke out on the development.

“The NBA and WNBA believe that women should be able to make their own decisions concerning their health and future,” the two basketball leagues said, “and we believe that freedom should be protected. We will continue to advocate for gender and health equity, including ensuring our employees have access to reproductive health care, regardless of their location.”

Maybe the NFL will say something today. Maybe the NFL will wait to see whether it’s pressured to do so. Maybe the NFL will opt, as it has done in the recent past, to err on the side of mollifying the portion of the fan base that would react more negatively to the NFL speaking out than the portion of the fan base that will react negatively to the NFL remaining silent.

Mike Silver, who spent several years working directly for the league, offered this observation on Sunday: “So the NFL, which for decades has draped itself in pink for a month and has been falling all over itself as of late to celebrate women, is completely silent after Friday’s decision? Sounds about right.”

The NFL likely prefers to exercise its right to remain silent on this issue because The Shield has become intertwined with notions of God and Country. And the lines between God and Country continue to blur, as our democracy teeters toward theocracy. As our democratic utopia veering farther into authoritarian dystopia.

This video sums it up. For the people who believe that their religion prohibits abortion, they don’t have to have one. For the people whose religion does not prohibit abortion, they should have that choice. For the people who are agnostic or atheist (and every American has the right to not believe in God or to believe generally that there’s a higher power but to eschew the hypocrisies and inconsistencies and raw profit motives of organized religion), they should have that choice.

This issue is rooted in true religious freedom. True bodily autonomy. True ability to make health-care decisions not based on black-and-white absolutes but on difficult nuances and subtleties arising from the many different circumstances that can result in pregnancies and the many different complications that can arise during them.

Then there’s the very real possibility that further rights that violate the religious standards of some will land under assault as the theocracy expands, from gay rights to contraception and beyond. That’s not paranoia; it’s specifically raised by Justice Clarence Thomas (whose seat was nearly derailed more than 30 years ago by a claim from Anita Hill that he engaged in sexual harassment in the workplace) in a concurring opinion. He basically invites the various states to pass laws that restrict other societal rights, so that the Supreme Court can shrug and say that the states can do whatever they want to do, except of course when it comes to gun safety.

To the stick to sports crowd, know this. The NFL doesn’t stick to sports when it believes its interests require it. The league only sticks to sports when it believes its interests compel silence. In nearly 72 hours since a half century of settled law was crumpled into a ball and tossed aside, the league has chosen to embrace silence. The league, as it always does, has made a P.R. calculation.

What happens next won’t be spontaneous or authentic but calculated and strategic. The league will say not what it truly believes, but what it believes it must say (or not say) to support the ever-expanding bottom line.

[chemiclord]

Regardless, the notion about life starting at conception is a RELIGIOUS opinion and has no business being put into law.

Oh absolutely. But I do think it's worth pointing out that their religious argument doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. It's truly disgusting how these Pharisees are using the word of God to advance their hatred and spite.

[chemiclord]

Yes, i’ll be second to admit that its a tad amusing.

And i think i know that Chemiclord would be the first to say “FK OFF” when he gets praise, (dont disappoint me now!)……. But the knowledge (i’d say) WITHOUT googling is probably 2nd to none. I’d like to say, love your posts chemic you knowledgable but opinionated cuntoid!!

Hand up that i didnt know ANY of those eye opening bible verses. Fkn hell……. You dont get taught that in between dick sucking @ holy school!

3 years of seminary study will do that. I can't do stuff like recite whole passages anymore, but I can still remember where to find the stuff I'm looking for.

And feck off.

[TheLondonLion]

The religiosity of the US is something I struggle to understand. In the UK I don’t know anyone who goes to church - it’s almost a post-religious society.

For all our problems (Brexit, clown Prime Minister etc) we at least don’t have Christian fundamentalism.

I get a feeling these Trumpy judges who lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings are just getting started.

Bader-Ginsburg’s refusal to leave the court when she could easily have been replaced by a young Democrat handing Trump almost a Supreme Court judge for every year of his one term is insanity and takes a lot of sheen off her legacy imo.

[chemiclord]

The religiosity of the US is something I struggle to understand. In the UK I don’t know anyone who goes to church - it’s almost a post-religious society.

For all our problems (Brexit, clown Prime Minister etc) we at least don’t have Christian fundamentalism.

I get a feeling these Trumpy judges who lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings are just getting started.

Bader-Ginsburg’s refusal to leave the court when she could easily have been replaced by a young Democrat handing Trump almost a Supreme Court judge for every year of his one term is insanity and takes a lot of sheen off her legacy imo.

1) The United States was founded in no small part by religious sects that were considered dangerously extreme by their home countries.

2) They absolutely are just getting started. Gay rights, gay marriage, segregation... they are all being called to be "reconsidered."

3) Ginsberg's refusal to retire would still mean a 5-4 majority that still overturns pretty much all of this, just in a slower (and in Robert's hope less overtly obvious) manner. That's really the only major difference. Roberts only disagrees with their haste. The election of Trump is the driving force in all of this, and those seeds were planted decades before Ginsberg was ever seated.

[TheLondonLion]

Question for you guys in Michigan and other “swing” states - I take it the red states are pretty much settled but will you not likely see a see sawing every time there’s a new majority party in the state legislature?

That sounds…chaotic.

[Da Geezer]

Regardless, the notion about life starting at conception is a RELIGIOUS opinion and has no business being put into law.

When do you think life begins Deb?

[Da Geezer]

Question for you guys in Michigan and other “swing” states - I take it the red states are pretty much settled but will you not likely see a see sawing every time there’s a new majority party in the state legislature?

That sounds…chaotic.

Good question.

I think swing states will reach some agreement at 15 weeks or something similar because neither party wants the uncertainty that a radical law in either direction would produce. People want certainty. As you correctly say, chaos or peace being the choice, I think folks will compromise and have peace.

But it will be interesting to see if abortion policy will be an animating issue like the Dems hope it is. Factually, there has not been a single positive policy come out of the Biden administration, and voters know it. Remember after Biden surrendered in Afghanistan, there was a pretty general rage in the country and wall to wall coverage in the media. But that died down and you don't hear much about it anymore. I think the same may happen with abortion.

[Da Geezer]

3 years of seminary study will do that. I can't do stuff like recite whole passages anymore, but I can still remember where to find the stuff I'm looking for.

And feck off.

Which seminary?

[Da Geezer]

THESE ARE THREE OF THE BIBLE VERSES THAT CHRISTIANS RELY UPON WHEN OPPOSING ABORTION ON DEMAND.


1. Psalm 139:13,15: For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . [M]y frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

2. Galatians 1:15: “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace.”

3. Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

[Da Geezer]

The religiosity of the US is something I struggle to understand. In the UK I don’t know anyone who goes to church - it’s almost a post-religious society.

For all our problems (Brexit, clown Prime Minister etc) we at least don’t have Christian fundamentalism.

I get a feeling these Trumpy judges who lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings are just getting started.

Bader-Ginsburg’s refusal to leave the court when she could easily have been replaced by a young Democrat handing Trump almost a Supreme Court judge for every year of his one term is insanity and takes a lot of sheen off her legacy imo.

Chemicord replied in his standard uneducated manner:
1) The United States was founded in no small part by religious sects that were considered dangerously extreme by their home countries.

2) They absolutely are just getting started. Gay rights, gay marriage, segregation... they are all being called to be "reconsidered."

3) Ginsberg's refusal to retire would still mean a 5-4 majority that still overturns pretty much all of this, just in a slower (and in Robert's hope less overtly obvious) manner. That's really the only major difference. Roberts only disagrees with their haste. The election of Trump is the driving force in all of this, and those seeds were planted decades before Ginsberg was ever seated.

The factual matters you question are

1. The US was founded by Protestants fleeing persecution by the Catholic Church in NW Europe. As Chemi says, they were considered "dangerously extreme" because they believed scripture was the final authority rather than the Pope. They also believed you could pray directly to God, and not run through the Catholic priests. The control mechanism that is and was the Catholic Church basically said that God talked to the Pope and then the Pope-Cardinal-Bishop-Priest hierarchy got God's order to the laity.
2. Factually, none of those things are remotely on the table. In fact, the Dobbs decision specifically states that. The religious left in the US wants this to be an issue in the coming election, so they are promulgating this fallacy. Clarence Thomas did say that some of the legal "reasoning" that was borrowed from Roe might have to be reviewed, but that was basically about the use of the 14th amendment to apply federal policy to the states.
3. For fifty years, pro-life opponents of Roe have worked through our system and elected Presidents who were pro-life. Those Presidents appointed Justices that were pro-life. Trump published a list of judges that he would consider appointing to the SC if an opening came up. There has been a conservative majority on the SC for about 2 years now. John Roberts is absolutely not a conservative. In the Dobbs decision, 5 Justices voted to overturn Roe, not six. Roberts wrote a concurring opinion saying he would not favor overruling Roe.

What the Dobbs decision did was send the matter of abortion back to the states for each state to make their own laws about abortion and have the people of the state vote on the matter. From the 1970s to 2020, the Dem party had used the SC to create policies that could not win support in a democracy. Roe was one of those cases.

As an observer from afar, has it bothered you that the parrots here don't seem to want the people to decide by voting? They claim 70% of the people in the US favor abortion, so what should be the problem? And, further, why do you not hear argumentation from the left that abortion is a constitutional right. It is not, and it never was a Constitutional right. It was something that was made up out of the "penumbras" and "emanations" (Griswald) in the constitution. I was in law school in 1973 (at UoM, a liberal school) and there was not a single professor who had anything but disdain for Roe's "reasoning".