Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[samiam5211]

Why would I need to support someone else's children?

Well, if no one supports them, they will steal and be in jail, where you will support them.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Legally, I think they will move the stance of viability unfortunately because the SCOTUS has become a joke of itself.

Personally, no, I don't. And yes, it is a religious stance.

We are a country that doesn't recognize any religion over another or give religion more weight than no religion. All religions and the irreligious are equal in the eyes of the law. The only rule is that your religious beliefs can't legally interfere with mine or with my ability to live my life. Our laws are supposed to be secular.

Why, then, should your religious beliefs be codified into law, where they will impact people that do not follow your religion?

 

[SystemShock]

You mean what every animal has gone through since we crawled out of a swamp?

Well, not every animal.

Yeah, I was married to a pregnant woman. You?

The mother and father mandated that when they had sex. Do you know what the end result of sex is?

A nap.

But seriously, the result of sex could be a pregnancy. Nothing could happen; if an egg gets fertilized, the woman's body could simply miscarry naturally (which happens much more often than people would think (some intelligent design, huh? Where is their God given right to life? I digress...).

Another thing that could happen, is that someone doesn't get vaccinated against a highly contagious and potentially deadly virus, and transmits said virus to another individual who could die of that virus. But you don't care about that other individual as much as a fertilized egg.

It hasn't changed and it is the same for every mammal on the planet.

Well, not every mammal.

If you can't afford to have a baby, then don't have sex.

How about rape? Incest? Child abuse?

life tends to find a way.

No shirt. Look at viruses.

What you do with you life is on you.

Apparently not, if you are a woman.

I just think you should have the chance to live that life.
Don't want/cant to support the child, there are other options besides killing it.

How many kids have you adopted?

If that child grows up and doesn't want a vaccine or a surgery to remove a ruptured appendix, cool. That is on them. It is their decision.

This board has gone 0 days without a false equivalency,

 

[SystemShock]

Why would I need to support someone else's children?

Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” ?

 

[SamAndreas]

Why would I need to support someone else's children?

Because you appear to not be willing to allow them the free choice of whether to have children. In another post you said:

Don't want/cant to support the child, there are other options besides killing it.

Those other options all involve that someone support those children, since you are the one demanding the denial of that choice, you might as well be the one who is held responsible for supporting those children. Otherwise don't stick your nose into their business.

Everything I've said follows conservative principles. If you insist that you get to make decisions for people, then you assume responsibility for those decisions you have forced upon them.

 

[Farb]

Because you appear to not be willing to allow them the free choice of whether to have children. In another post you said:



Those other options all involve that someone support those children, since you are the one demanding the denial of that choice, you might as well be the one who is held responsible for supporting those children. Otherwise don't stick your nose into their business.

Everything I've said follows conservative principles. If you insist that you get to make decisions for people, then you assume responsibility for those decisions you have forced upon them.

Do they not have free choice to not have sex? It is not as if you walk down the street on the way to work and catch a pregnant virus. There is an act that those people willingly engage in and the end result, as by design, is a child. Why am I personally on the hook because someone makes a bad decision?

Yes. If someone adopts a child they are now responsible for that child. That is kind of how being a parent works.

I am not making choices for anyone, I am electing officials who will make laws or appoint judges that I believe are in the best interest of myself, my country and my society. That is kind of how a democratic republic works is it not?

 

[Farb]

Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” ?

Cool. Do you think welcome mean murder or actually welcoming?

 

[Farb]

We are a country that doesn't recognize any religion over another or give religion more weight than no religion. All religions and the irreligious are equal in the eyes of the law. The only rule is that your religious beliefs can't legally interfere with mine or with my ability to live my life. Our laws are supposed to be secular.

Why, then, should your religious beliefs be codified into law, where they will impact people that do not follow your religion?

Oh, there is a misunderstanding. I am 100% behind making Christian beliefs into law. I am fan of western civilization.

 

[Farb]

Well, if no one supports them, they will steal and be in jail, where you will support them.

All poor people end up in jail?

 

[SamAndreas]

Do they not have free choice to not have sex? It is not as if you walk down the street on the way to work and catch a pregnant virus. There is an act that those people willingly engage in and the end result, as by design, is a child. Why am I personally on the hook because someone makes a bad decision?

Yes. If someone adopts a child they are now responsible for that child. That is kind of how being a parent works.

I am not making choices for anyone, I am electing officials who will make laws or appoint judges that I believe are in the best interest of myself, my country and my society. That is kind of how a democratic republic works is it not?

Do you not have free choice to keep your nose out of their business?

 

[samiam5211]

All poor people end up in jail?

No, so you are ok with supporting the ones who break the law, but the law abiding ones can starve for all you care?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Oh, there is a misunderstanding. I am 100% behind making Christian beliefs into law. I am fan of western civilization.

So you stand for everything the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

[MT15]

Oh, there is a misunderstanding. I am 100% behind making Christian beliefs into law. I am fan of western civilization.

You’re evidently not a fan of America, then, but I have known that for a while now.

What you want is a theocracy. You would fit right in with the Taliban in that sense.

 

[SystemShock]

Cool. Do you think welcome mean murder or actually welcoming?

No, I meant that Jesus himself is telling you why you should support other people's children.

 

[SamAndreas]

Saw this earlier today

Barrett concerned about public perception of Supreme Court

Justices must be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” she said.

www.politico.com

Justices must be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” Barrett said at a lecture hosted by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.

Barrett said the media’s reporting of opinions doesn’t capture the deliberative process in reaching those decisions. And she insisted that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,”

I liked reading this because she is the one who I'm hoping will swing along side Roberts to save Roe v Wade.

She told the Senate that Roe was settled law. All of the Trump judges have said that in one way or another, but out of all of them my read on her is she has the integrity to keep her word.

 

[SystemShock]

Oh, there is a misunderstanding. I am 100% behind making Christian beliefs into law. I am fan of western civilization.

I don't think you are that much of a fan of Western civilization... maybe a fair weather one Western civilization as we know it comes first from ancient Greece and then the Renaissance, not Christian Europe. Had it not been for secular morality, who knows when Europe comes out of the dark ages; the dark ages BTW being the result of Christian beliefs made into law.

It does sound you are a fan of Sharia.

And as it relates to abortion, then you should be ok with it, as abortion is sanctioned by the Bible:
“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

 

[MT15]

I liked reading this because she is the one who I'm hoping will swing along side Roberts to save Roe v Wade.

She told the Senate that Roe was settled law. All of the Trump judges have said that in one way or another, but out of all of them my read on her is she has the integrity to keep her word.

I don’t hold much hope for her. Her speech is just CYA, in my opinion. She had zero difficulty accepting a nomination that broke all precedents in that it was rushed through during the voting of a presidential election. Nor did she hesitate to attend a super spreader event at the WH long before there were vaccines. I really do hope I’m wrong about her, but I have a hard time being that optimistic right now.

 

[samiam5211]

I don’t hold much hope for her. Her speech is just CYA, in my opinion. She had zero difficulty accepting a nomination that broke all precedents in that it was rushed through during the voting of a presidential election. Nor did she hesitate to attend a super spreader event at the WH long before there were vaccines. I really do hope I’m wrong about her, but I have a hard time being that optimistic right now.

Well, personally I wouldn’t hold accepting the nomination against her because I would expect anyone Biden nominates to accept if their nomination was rushed because it would prevent a Republican nominee.

She’s better than Kavanaugh, but I can’t see her voting to preserve abortion rights.

She will just fall back on states rights to rationalize it.