Either way those poor women are fuçked...literally twice.
Lot of hilarious crap in this thread. Let me take a dump on this crap pile.
Ian believes there's only one religion. I think that is dependent on the definition of religion. As defined by the IRS, there are many. As defined by the vast majority of people who have that word in their vernacular, there are also many. Maybe he means that he believes in only one true religion, or one religion that is right about all this ****. Bravo brother. Faith is a great thing. I wish I had some.
I got to hand it to them, Christians carved out the winning strategy. Peter's infographic was freaking hilarious. I don't want you to do it because I want what's best for you? There's a lot of assumption there. How does that Christian know what's best for the secular person? The answer is because they're trying to save that person! The Trump card of all Trump cards! The ace of spades. Tell you what, you don't try to save me and I won't try to unsave you. Lol.
I ain't mad. I'm just pointing out the irony. Side note: I absolutely hate that when I dictate the word Trump into my phone, it automatically capitalizes the word.
The thing I hate about social issues is that every side picks their poison, and there's no consistency to any of it. We say that abortion is not in the specified rights in the constitution and therefore it up to the states to decide. Great. Is that your stance? Is that your party's platform? Why were you cheering when the supreme Court struck New York's hundred year old concealed carry law? Concealed carry is not A specific right granted by the constitution of the United States. Therefore it should be in the hands of the state. No? Of course not. Don't bother replying to that, it was simply rhetorical.
It's also very slippery when it comes to this hobby that binds us together. Liberal whack jobs want to save us from our devices, namely booze and smokes. They're doing it in our best interest because we won't do it for ourselves. (Sort of sounds like saving us, right?) Smoking tobacco is not a right granted by the Bill of Rights. Therefore it's not protected. I wonder what all the Christians feel about that issue.
Finally and most importantly about this entire abortion debate is that this reversal has not and will not prevent the vast majority of people who want to get abortions from getting them.
At the peril of being judged by some of the people who feel very strongly about this topic, I will share with you that my wife bought an abortion box. She bought it from Amazon. It is filled with morning after pills that are good for 6 years. It's filled with condoms and birth control contraceptives that I've never even dreamed of. No prescriptions. No doctor consults. No nothing. Abortion in a box.
All Justice Thomas did was take everyone's eye off the prize. All it did was influence all of the "politically woke " side choosers in the Sean hannity Rachel maddow super fight to dig their heels in deeper and to have more vitriol for the other side. That's the entire idea behind this decision. That's the entire idea of behind Clarence Thomas's writings. This isn't about women. It's not about babies. It's not about protecting. It's not about life. It's about giving the pet dog a bone to chew on so he doesn't wake up and figure out that the 500 idiots in Washington stealing every penny they can from you.
Can't wait to see what happens when they take the gay marriage thing away. Hey baby, Leviticus is Leviticus. Can't wait till they take Red lobster away too. Oh and the tattoo shops. Never mind the Christ sort of nullified the entire book of Leviticus.
As a matter of fact, let's look at plessy and Brown. That might get interesting.
Go back to sleep everyone. Your congressman will keep you safe. Just keep on writing to him.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@Hobbes86 said: @VegasFrank
I said that I believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and I said clearly.
Sweet! One for your side. 😉
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
Now you can say one true or give an atheist and money back guarantee, but that doesn't make it so. Christianity is a religion, but the United States of America isn't. So the problem that I have ultimately is that one side is using the Bible to restrict the right to pursue happiness of another side.
In a political world, and in a political topics discussion thread, and in America, we ostensibly separate government and religion. In government and in the law, the Bible has no hit points. It doesn't have any health hearts. It's not a thing.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I just don't want what I said to be misrepresented.
I wouldn't want that either, friend.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
Now you can say one true or give an atheist and money back guarantee, but that doesn't make it so. Christianity is a religion, but the United States of America isn't. So the problem that I have ultimately is that one side is using the Bible to restrict the right to pursue happiness of another side.
In a political world, and in a political topics discussion thread, and in America, we ostensibly separate government and religion. In government and in the law, the Bible has no hit points. It doesn't have any health hearts. It's not a thing.
Our laws are supported through the belief that they are needed or are just. This is despite having a portion of citizenry that disagrees, or does not believe in, one or more of them. Effectively, reducing rights to pursue happiness in some cases. Even without a Bible being involved.
My faith is a lens through which I view the world, it cannot be separated from how I view politics or social issues.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
@VegasFrank said:
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
Now you can say one true or give an atheist and money back guarantee, but that doesn't make it so. Christianity is a religion, but the United States of America isn't. So the problem that I have ultimately is that one side is using the Bible to restrict the right to pursue happiness of another side.
In a political world, and in a political topics discussion thread, and in America, we ostensibly separate government and religion. In government and in the law, the Bible has no hit points. It doesn't have any health hearts. It's not a thing.
Our laws are supported through the belief that they are needed or are just. This is despite having a portion of citizenry that disagrees, or does not believe in, one or more of them. Effectively, reducing rights to pursue happiness in some cases. Even without a Bible being involved.
My faith is a lens through which I view the world, it cannot be separated from how I view politics or social issues.
That's very true and all good, but a lens is different than an instrument to administer. The bible as source documentation is not valid as support evidence for a law to people who do not find your Bible to be valid, one true or not.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I think this discussion has been great. I couldn’t agree with hobbes86 more and both him and @Vision have been very civil. Love it that two people can disagree and still be respectful!
...and our laws are supported by the concept that they serve a public interest, not that they're just. King George thought it was just to quarter soldiers with citizens...but that was only his opinion.
"Honorable and just" are almost always a matter of opinion, even when that opinion is shared by virtually everyone.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
That's very true and all good, but a lens is different than an instrument to administer. The bible as source documentation is not valid as support evidence for a law to people who do not find your Bible to be valid, one true or not.
Then what is a viable source material?
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
@VegasFrank said:
That's very true and all good, but a lens is different than an instrument to administer. The bible as source documentation is not valid as support evidence for a law to people who do not find your Bible to be valid, one true or not.
Then what is a viable source material?
That's a great question. The constitution is a great source document. In case law, especially case law decided by the supreme Court, precedent is used.
That all sounds super awesome and fun, but in the reality of the application of the law, there are always multiple rights, or interests, that often conflict with one another. And those cases, courts will apply a litmus test to determine the priority of one right over another, or the priority of a plaintiff's rights against a defendant's.
The most elementary example I can think of is the old adage of yelling fire and a crowded hall. You as a citizen of this country have the right to free speech. However, you're right to free speech cannot infringe on the public's health and safety. Therefore, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded hall and you cannot use the constitution as your defense.
Every single last argument and case ever decided by any court in this country comes down to precedent and litmus test. None of it comes down to Bible.
Even outlawing murder, which seems completely elementary and fundamental to any society, is about public interest. It's not about the commandments. The public interest at stake here is the safety of the public. A public which is not safe will not engage in commerce. A public that does not engage in commerce does not generate revenue, or GDP.
Speed limit? Public safety. Skipping out on jury duty? And you are going against the public interest of service to your country or participating in the judicial system which is been established as a citizen's right. I forget. I've heard it both ways.
Bottom line is that every law by nature is restrictive. Every law passed by Congress and every verdict handed down by a court restricts one party or another from doing something. That's what rules are after all, a set of restrictions. Can't do that without a public interest.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
That's a great question. The constitution is a great source document. In case law, especially case law decided by the supreme Court, precedent is used.
That all sounds super awesome and fun, but in the reality of the application of the law, there are always multiple rights, or interests, that often conflict with one another. And those cases, courts will apply a litmus test to determine the priority of one right over another, or the priority of a plaintiff's rights against a defendant's.
The most elementary example I can think of is the old adage of yelling fire and a crowded hall. You as a citizen of this country have the right to free speech. However, you're right to free speech cannot infringe on the public's health and safety. Therefore, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded hall and you cannot use the constitution as your defense.
Every single last argument and case ever decided by any court in this country comes down to precedent and litmus test. None of it comes down to Bible.
Even outlawing murder, which seems completely elementary and fundamental to any society, is about public interest. It's not about the commandments. The public interest at stake here is the safety of the public. A public which is not safe will not engage in commerce. A public that does not engage in commerce does not generate revenue, or GDP.
Speed limit? Public safety. Skipping out on jury duty? And you are going against the public interest of service to your country or participating in the judicial system which is been established as a citizen's right. I forget. I've heard it both ways.
Bottom line is that every law by nature is restrictive. Every law passed by Congress and every verdict handed down by a court restricts one party or another from doing something. That's what rules are after all, a set of restrictions. Can't do that without a public interest.
That is some interesting stuff to consider and think about, Frank. I appreciate the response.
I didn't build my support of Pro-Life legislation on the Bible and my God's will alone, though that would be enough in my opinion. The fact is that a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception, human life is set into motion. It is defenseless on its own. I figure that's when we should start protecting it. The reason I care so much about human life is attributable to my faith. If God hadn't created us for a purpose then life wouldn't be nearly as valuable.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
@VegasFrank said:
That's a great question. The constitution is a great source document. In case law, especially case law decided by the supreme Court, precedent is used.
That all sounds super awesome and fun, but in the reality of the application of the law, there are always multiple rights, or interests, that often conflict with one another. And those cases, courts will apply a litmus test to determine the priority of one right over another, or the priority of a plaintiff's rights against a defendant's.
The most elementary example I can think of is the old adage of yelling fire and a crowded hall. You as a citizen of this country have the right to free speech. However, you're right to free speech cannot infringe on the public's health and safety. Therefore, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded hall and you cannot use the constitution as your defense.
Every single last argument and case ever decided by any court in this country comes down to precedent and litmus test. None of it comes down to Bible.
Even outlawing murder, which seems completely elementary and fundamental to any society, is about public interest. It's not about the commandments. The public interest at stake here is the safety of the public. A public which is not safe will not engage in commerce. A public that does not engage in commerce does not generate revenue, or GDP.
Speed limit? Public safety. Skipping out on jury duty? And you are going against the public interest of service to your country or participating in the judicial system which is been established as a citizen's right. I forget. I've heard it both ways.
Bottom line is that every law by nature is restrictive. Every law passed by Congress and every verdict handed down by a court restricts one party or another from doing something. That's what rules are after all, a set of restrictions. Can't do that without a public interest.
That is some interesting stuff to consider and think about, Frank. I appreciate the response.
I didn't build my support of Pro-Life legislation on the Bible and my God's will alone, though that would be enough in my opinion. The fact is that a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception, human life is set into motion. It is defenseless on its own. I figure that's when we should start protecting it. The reason I care so much about human life is attributable to my faith. If God hadn't created us for a purpose then life wouldn't be nearly as valuable.
I totally respect that and agree morally with the argument on a secular level. All
I'm saying is that the US government does not recognize that unique DNA, embryo, fetus as a separate life. The social security administration will not give it a social security number. The IRS will not give it a tax deduction. Health and human services will not let it purchase medical insurance, or let the mother claim it as its own independent life form on her medical insurance. The constitution doesn't say anything about the unborn baby. Even Clarence Thomas didn't say it was illegal. He said was up to states.
It is in this regard where pro-lifers seem to want to impose their belief system, values, and morals on a pro choice. So while I may agree with the pro-life side from a moral standpoint, I disagree with forcing my views onto a subset of America just because they're my views.
That subset does not believe it is a life, and they have a reasonable scientific fact set to support them. They don't believe in your Bible or his Quran or her book of Mormon or some Egyptians hieroglyphics.
Christianity is the thing that you hold above all else, and I respect that. You say the Christianity teaches you that a single cell to embryo is the start of life, and it drives you to your position. I also respect that immensely.
I have spent my entire life serving and working in the industry that protects Americans and their rights. America is the thing that I hold above all else. This is the standpoint from which I come, and in that regard, I cannot support a side that restricts the rights of others, even when it agrees with me morally.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
@VegasFrank Nope. That ain't the bottom line at all. The first part is correct, but then you bring all that gobbledygook. You're drawing a hard division between Christians and everybody else. Nobody has to be Christian to oppose abortion.
@VegasFrank said:
That's a great question. The constitution is a great source document. In case law, especially case law decided by the supreme Court, precedent is used.
That all sounds super awesome and fun, but in the reality of the application of the law, there are always multiple rights, or interests, that often conflict with one another. And those cases, courts will apply a litmus test to determine the priority of one right over another, or the priority of a plaintiff's rights against a defendant's.
The most elementary example I can think of is the old adage of yelling fire and a crowded hall. You as a citizen of this country have the right to free speech. However, you're right to free speech cannot infringe on the public's health and safety. Therefore, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded hall and you cannot use the constitution as your defense.
Every single last argument and case ever decided by any court in this country comes down to precedent and litmus test. None of it comes down to Bible.
Even outlawing murder, which seems completely elementary and fundamental to any society, is about public interest. It's not about the commandments. The public interest at stake here is the safety of the public. A public which is not safe will not engage in commerce. A public that does not engage in commerce does not generate revenue, or GDP.
Speed limit? Public safety. Skipping out on jury duty? And you are going against the public interest of service to your country or participating in the judicial system which is been established as a citizen's right. I forget. I've heard it both ways.
Bottom line is that every law by nature is restrictive. Every law passed by Congress and every verdict handed down by a court restricts one party or another from doing something. That's what rules are after all, a set of restrictions. Can't do that without a public interest.
That is some interesting stuff to consider and think about, Frank. I appreciate the response.
I didn't build my support of Pro-Life legislation on the Bible and my God's will alone, though that would be enough in my opinion. The fact is that a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception, human life is set into motion. It is defenseless on its own. I figure that's when we should start protecting it. The reason I care so much about human life is attributable to my faith. If God hadn't created us for a purpose then life wouldn't be nearly as valuable.
I totally respect that and agree morally with the argument on a secular level. All
I'm saying is that the US government does not recognize that unique DNA, embryo, fetus as a separate life. The social security administration will not give it a social security number. The IRS will not give it a tax deduction. Health and human services will not let it purchase medical insurance, or let the mother claim it as its own independent life form on her medical insurance. The constitution doesn't say anything about the unborn baby. Even Clarence Thomas didn't say it was illegal. He said was up to states.
It is in this regard where pro-lifers seem to want to impose their belief system, values, and morals on a pro choice. So while I may agree with the pro-life side from a moral standpoint, I disagree with forcing my views onto a subset of America just because they're my views.
That subset does not believe it is a life, and they have a reasonable scientific fact set to support them. They don't believe in your Bible or his Quran or her book of Mormon or some Egyptians hieroglyphics.
Christianity is the thing that you hold above all else, and I respect that. You say the Christianity teaches you that a single cell to embryo is the start of life, and it drives you to your position. I also respect that immensely.
I have spent my entire life serving and working in the industry that protects Americans and their rights. America is the thing that I hold above all else. This is the standpoint from which I come, and in that regard, I cannot support a side that restricts the rights of others, even when it agrees with me morally.
@VegasFrank What is the "reasonable scientific fact set" that the pro-choice people are using? I'm not trying to attack your position. I just want to hear your understanding of it since you put it into those terms.
Let's throw absolute ban regardless of circumstances into this discussion. For instance what about this abused 10 year old girl? The state says tough luck, kid, if you don't like go somewhere else. Where is the compassion?
@silvermouse said:
Let's throw absolute ban regardless of circumstances into this discussion. For instance what about this abused 10 year old girl? The state says tough luck, kid, if you don't like go somewhere else. Where is the compassion?
Compassion also comes from varying points of view. Some will point to the unborn child and say it deserves a chance as well, that a bad thing happening to the girl does not justify the ending of an innocent human life. That is also born from compassion. Some might say that caring the baby to term can help bring emotional healing, that a child can be a blessing that arises from a bad situation. This is also based in compassion. Others might point out that once the baby is born there are any number of ways for the girl to put it up for adoption and no longer be responsible for it. That comes from compassion as well.
Even I concede that those who wish the girl to get an abortion are coming from a place of compassion.
It is all just a matter of whether or not compassion is misplaced or clouds our judgement. It isn't typically a matter of compassion not existing.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
I have spent my entire life serving and working in the industry that protects Americans and their rights. America is the thing that I hold above all else. This is the standpoint from which I come, and in that regard, I cannot support a side that restricts the rights of others, even when it agrees with me morally.
So, are you saying that until the government recognizes that a fetus is a person and gives it an SS# and all that, the government has no business limiting abortion?
Everyone would agree that it's human, but until it's born and becomes a person - recognized by the government as such - it has no rights, and we as a society are not obliged to help it or protect it. Is that correct?
A minute after it's birthed it has all the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But hell, a minute before it pops out we can do to it whatever we want, up to and including causing some of the most gruesome ways to die.
Another thing I'd like to know, and should look into; why do some states criminally charge someone who through negligent behavior causes a woman to miscarry? Say, a drunk plows into a pregnant woman and she loses her baby. She could abort it the next day, to the applause of many, but if that bum causes it, he's going to prison. Must be something to do w/ willfulness, like she gets to choose but if he chooses through his negligence, then he's on the hook. But there's a non-government-recognized life form and somebody goes to prison if the life is terminated wrongfully. ? Just something to think about.
Forget all the Christian stuff for a minute. It's just wrong, and it should be important enough to society to realize that it's wrong.
Along those lines, I suspect having an abortion is a difficult, gut-wrenching decision for most women. I doubt that many take it lightly and feel it's their last option. So I wouldn't condemn or look down on them.
Comments
@CharlieHeis
I've read in several places that it is much less than 1%. I don't remember the exact percentage, though.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
Either way those poor women are fuçked...literally twice.
Lot of hilarious crap in this thread. Let me take a dump on this crap pile.
Ian believes there's only one religion. I think that is dependent on the definition of religion. As defined by the IRS, there are many. As defined by the vast majority of people who have that word in their vernacular, there are also many. Maybe he means that he believes in only one true religion, or one religion that is right about all this ****. Bravo brother. Faith is a great thing. I wish I had some.
I got to hand it to them, Christians carved out the winning strategy. Peter's infographic was freaking hilarious. I don't want you to do it because I want what's best for you? There's a lot of assumption there. How does that Christian know what's best for the secular person? The answer is because they're trying to save that person! The Trump card of all Trump cards! The ace of spades. Tell you what, you don't try to save me and I won't try to unsave you. Lol.
I ain't mad. I'm just pointing out the irony. Side note: I absolutely hate that when I dictate the word Trump into my phone, it automatically capitalizes the word.
The thing I hate about social issues is that every side picks their poison, and there's no consistency to any of it. We say that abortion is not in the specified rights in the constitution and therefore it up to the states to decide. Great. Is that your stance? Is that your party's platform? Why were you cheering when the supreme Court struck New York's hundred year old concealed carry law? Concealed carry is not A specific right granted by the constitution of the United States. Therefore it should be in the hands of the state. No? Of course not. Don't bother replying to that, it was simply rhetorical.
It's also very slippery when it comes to this hobby that binds us together. Liberal whack jobs want to save us from our devices, namely booze and smokes. They're doing it in our best interest because we won't do it for ourselves. (Sort of sounds like saving us, right?) Smoking tobacco is not a right granted by the Bill of Rights. Therefore it's not protected. I wonder what all the Christians feel about that issue.
Finally and most importantly about this entire abortion debate is that this reversal has not and will not prevent the vast majority of people who want to get abortions from getting them.
At the peril of being judged by some of the people who feel very strongly about this topic, I will share with you that my wife bought an abortion box. She bought it from Amazon. It is filled with morning after pills that are good for 6 years. It's filled with condoms and birth control contraceptives that I've never even dreamed of. No prescriptions. No doctor consults. No nothing. Abortion in a box.
All Justice Thomas did was take everyone's eye off the prize. All it did was influence all of the "politically woke " side choosers in the Sean hannity Rachel maddow super fight to dig their heels in deeper and to have more vitriol for the other side. That's the entire idea behind this decision. That's the entire idea of behind Clarence Thomas's writings. This isn't about women. It's not about babies. It's not about protecting. It's not about life. It's about giving the pet dog a bone to chew on so he doesn't wake up and figure out that the 500 idiots in Washington stealing every penny they can from you.
Can't wait to see what happens when they take the gay marriage thing away. Hey baby, Leviticus is Leviticus. Can't wait till they take Red lobster away too. Oh and the tattoo shops. Never mind the Christ sort of nullified the entire book of Leviticus.
As a matter of fact, let's look at plessy and Brown. That might get interesting.
Go back to sleep everyone. Your congressman will keep you safe. Just keep on writing to him.
@VegasFrank
I said that I believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and I said it clearly.
Edit: Grammar
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
Well said “crazy flipping fingers”.
MOW badge received.
Sweet! One for your side. 😉
I just don't want what I said to be misrepresented.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
Now you can say one true or give an atheist and money back guarantee, but that doesn't make it so. Christianity is a religion, but the United States of America isn't. So the problem that I have ultimately is that one side is using the Bible to restrict the right to pursue happiness of another side.
In a political world, and in a political topics discussion thread, and in America, we ostensibly separate government and religion. In government and in the law, the Bible has no hit points. It doesn't have any health hearts. It's not a thing.
I wouldn't want that either, friend.
Anybody with a brain knows the only true religion is Scientology. Go Elron Hubbard!
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
Our laws are supported through the belief that they are needed or are just. This is despite having a portion of citizenry that disagrees, or does not believe in, one or more of them. Effectively, reducing rights to pursue happiness in some cases. Even without a Bible being involved.
My faith is a lens through which I view the world, it cannot be separated from how I view politics or social issues.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
From what I hear, Tom Cruise and Will Smith would support this message.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
I thought we raised you better you ****
I’m old enough to make my own decision’s paw!
MOW badge received.
That's very true and all good, but a lens is different than an instrument to administer. The bible as source documentation is not valid as support evidence for a law to people who do not find your Bible to be valid, one true or not.
I think this discussion has been great. I couldn’t agree with hobbes86 more and both him and @Vision have been very civil. Love it that two people can disagree and still be respectful!
...and our laws are supported by the concept that they serve a public interest, not that they're just. King George thought it was just to quarter soldiers with citizens...but that was only his opinion.
"Honorable and just" are almost always a matter of opinion, even when that opinion is shared by virtually everyone.
Go fũck yourself.
That's better, now we just need someone to call someone else a nа̃zi.
Then what is a viable source material?
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
That's a great question. The constitution is a great source document. In case law, especially case law decided by the supreme Court, precedent is used.
That all sounds super awesome and fun, but in the reality of the application of the law, there are always multiple rights, or interests, that often conflict with one another. And those cases, courts will apply a litmus test to determine the priority of one right over another, or the priority of a plaintiff's rights against a defendant's.
The most elementary example I can think of is the old adage of yelling fire and a crowded hall. You as a citizen of this country have the right to free speech. However, you're right to free speech cannot infringe on the public's health and safety. Therefore, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded hall and you cannot use the constitution as your defense.
Every single last argument and case ever decided by any court in this country comes down to precedent and litmus test. None of it comes down to Bible.
Even outlawing murder, which seems completely elementary and fundamental to any society, is about public interest. It's not about the commandments. The public interest at stake here is the safety of the public. A public which is not safe will not engage in commerce. A public that does not engage in commerce does not generate revenue, or GDP.
Speed limit? Public safety. Skipping out on jury duty? And you are going against the public interest of service to your country or participating in the judicial system which is been established as a citizen's right. I forget. I've heard it both ways.
Bottom line is that every law by nature is restrictive. Every law passed by Congress and every verdict handed down by a court restricts one party or another from doing something. That's what rules are after all, a set of restrictions. Can't do that without a public interest.
Wait what's happening> @Patrickbrick said:
There is a superior being of some sort but it's definitely aliens.
Sorry I skipped every other post after this one
Thinking I’m gonna just keep my opinion to myself
here's a well thought out editorial in our local paper that says what I reason to be an accurate analysis of faith and law:
https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/opinion/2022/07/03/lawrence-brown-when-faith-trumps-politics-dangers-democracy-emerge/7745216001/?utm_source=capecodtimes-DailyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_briefing&utm_term=list_article_headline&utm_content=NCCT-MASSACHUSETTS-HYANNIS-NLETTER65
That is some interesting stuff to consider and think about, Frank. I appreciate the response.
I didn't build my support of Pro-Life legislation on the Bible and my God's will alone, though that would be enough in my opinion. The fact is that a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception, human life is set into motion. It is defenseless on its own. I figure that's when we should start protecting it. The reason I care so much about human life is attributable to my faith. If God hadn't created us for a purpose then life wouldn't be nearly as valuable.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
I totally respect that and agree morally with the argument on a secular level. All
I'm saying is that the US government does not recognize that unique DNA, embryo, fetus as a separate life. The social security administration will not give it a social security number. The IRS will not give it a tax deduction. Health and human services will not let it purchase medical insurance, or let the mother claim it as its own independent life form on her medical insurance. The constitution doesn't say anything about the unborn baby. Even Clarence Thomas didn't say it was illegal. He said was up to states.
It is in this regard where pro-lifers seem to want to impose their belief system, values, and morals on a pro choice. So while I may agree with the pro-life side from a moral standpoint, I disagree with forcing my views onto a subset of America just because they're my views.
That subset does not believe it is a life, and they have a reasonable scientific fact set to support them. They don't believe in your Bible or his Quran or her book of Mormon or some Egyptians hieroglyphics.
Christianity is the thing that you hold above all else, and I respect that. You say the Christianity teaches you that a single cell to embryo is the start of life, and it drives you to your position. I also respect that immensely.
I have spent my entire life serving and working in the industry that protects Americans and their rights. America is the thing that I hold above all else. This is the standpoint from which I come, and in that regard, I cannot support a side that restricts the rights of others, even when it agrees with me morally.
The very bottom of bottom lines in the abortion debate are that the pro birthers Believe that abortion is the murdering of human life. The anti birthers feel that it's not. If a Christian says that he or she is right because the Bible told him so, but the other person doesn't believe in the Bible, then the law preventing one side from doing The other side from doing something is based on a book that the other person doesn't believe!
@VegasFrank Nope. That ain't the bottom line at all. The first part is correct, but then you bring all that gobbledygook. You're drawing a hard division between Christians and everybody else. Nobody has to be Christian to oppose abortion.
@VegasFrank What is the "reasonable scientific fact set" that the pro-choice people are using? I'm not trying to attack your position. I just want to hear your understanding of it since you put it into those terms.
Let's throw absolute ban regardless of circumstances into this discussion. For instance what about this abused 10 year old girl? The state says tough luck, kid, if you don't like go somewhere else. Where is the compassion?
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/
Compassion also comes from varying points of view. Some will point to the unborn child and say it deserves a chance as well, that a bad thing happening to the girl does not justify the ending of an innocent human life. That is also born from compassion. Some might say that caring the baby to term can help bring emotional healing, that a child can be a blessing that arises from a bad situation. This is also based in compassion. Others might point out that once the baby is born there are any number of ways for the girl to put it up for adoption and no longer be responsible for it. That comes from compassion as well.
Even I concede that those who wish the girl to get an abortion are coming from a place of compassion.
It is all just a matter of whether or not compassion is misplaced or clouds our judgement. It isn't typically a matter of compassion not existing.
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." - Proverbs 27:17
So, are you saying that until the government recognizes that a fetus is a person and gives it an SS# and all that, the government has no business limiting abortion?
Everyone would agree that it's human, but until it's born and becomes a person - recognized by the government as such - it has no rights, and we as a society are not obliged to help it or protect it. Is that correct?
A minute after it's birthed it has all the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But hell, a minute before it pops out we can do to it whatever we want, up to and including causing some of the most gruesome ways to die.
Another thing I'd like to know, and should look into; why do some states criminally charge someone who through negligent behavior causes a woman to miscarry? Say, a drunk plows into a pregnant woman and she loses her baby. She could abort it the next day, to the applause of many, but if that bum causes it, he's going to prison. Must be something to do w/ willfulness, like she gets to choose but if he chooses through his negligence, then he's on the hook. But there's a non-government-recognized life form and somebody goes to prison if the life is terminated wrongfully. ? Just something to think about.
Forget all the Christian stuff for a minute. It's just wrong, and it should be important enough to society to realize that it's wrong.
Along those lines, I suspect having an abortion is a difficult, gut-wrenching decision for most women. I doubt that many take it lightly and feel it's their last option. So I wouldn't condemn or look down on them.