Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222005)

Women’s rights had to take a back seat to Trump’s ego and ambition. ;)

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222005)

U.S Supreme Court Ruling Rescinds Roe v. Wade (6-24-2022)



In their unprecedented decision, the 6 Supreme Court Justices in this majority ruling are not even pretending to follow the rule of law and tossed precedent out the window, ignoring stare decisis. Never before had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right that an earlier court has affirmed, not once, but twice, (Roe and Casey). What they have done is a shocking decision that is a very depressing and dystopian setback to the rights of Americans.



Regarding this ruling, Maureen Down succinctly stated in her 6/24/22 NY Times Op-Ed column the following:



“Over the last three decades, I have witnessed a dismal saga of opportunism, fanaticism, mendacity, concupiscence, hypocrisy and cowardice. This is a story about men gaining power by trading away something that meant little to them compared with their own stature: the rights of women……

Women’s rights had to take a back seat to Trump’s ego and ambition and McConnell’s desire for a conservative court that would pull back the reach of the government, denying protections to Americans who need or value them. They pushed through three conservative justices — one had to defend himself against sexual assault charges and one was in a weird “Handmaid’s Tale”-style extreme fundamentalist Catholic sect — and that was checkmate for Roe.”



The U.S. Supreme Court was supposedly the one institution in our tri-partite constitutional republic that was presumably intended to be non-political and devoid of all biases. That ideal is obviously no longer the case and may not have been since their Bush v. Gore ruling back in 2000. Looking back, we can now see that four of the six Justices who were in the majority overturning Roe v. Wade all had one thing in common during their Senate confirmation hearings: they lied under oath. All 4 of them said or inferred, in so many words, that “Roe v. Wade is settled law.”



In their ruling, these six justices have shown that they are intellectually lazy and really do not care about the people they serve. They work in a privileged, protected environment and insulated ivory tower. They rationalize their rulings on their personal reading and IMHO, warped historical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives and Republicans press the view that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to what their text was originally understood to mean, often referred to as “originalism”. Liberals and Democrats tend to argue that the framers defined rights in general terms to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning by applying them in new ways in response to new societal understandings and conditions that they could not conceive of at that time.



I strongly believe that basic human rights, like the right to decide what happens to your body, should not be decided by six unelected U.S. Supreme Court Justices. What they did with this ruling is just bald-faced activism. Sadly, this court is now revealed to be a very bad and sad joke and due to their 6-person right-wing ideological majority, no one can expect to have a fair and impartial ruling from them. It is also very concerning as to what future cases they may take and rule on that would possibly reduce or curtain other rights granted by earlier court decisions.



Simply put, these Justices are purely motivated by their right-wing ideology and conservative dogmatic religion and ruled this way because they could. The arrogance and unapologetic nature of the written opinion and final ruling is truly breathtaking and clearly sums up what the US Supreme Court majority is today: religious and politically motivated zealots. This majority has proven that their suspected reputation as partisan religious hacks is completely accurate. It is not just the end of the Supreme Court as an impartial judicial referee. On this important topic, these six, unelected Justices represent the minority extreme right-wing ideology in this country and unfortunately are allowed to decide how the rest of us live. Ultimately, the result of this ruling is the total loss of trust, as well as respect for and legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court by the American public. How much longer will the majority of Americans tolerate this imbalance and injustice in our ever increasing polarized and divided country?



Unfortunately, I also believe that this ruling will most likely mean an accelerated hollowing out of rural backward-thinking states as young people flee the abrogation of women’s rights, and all the other trappings of religious fundamentalism, including violence towards gays, intransigent racism, anti-science education, xenophobia, etc. Yet still, those economically doomed states will wield increasingly disproportionate and extremist power because of our flawed Constitution giving them disproportionate voting power in the U.S. Senate, not based on total population.



To me, the political hypocrisy is mind boggling. Historically, conservatives say they do not want a police state, or a nanny state, or a welfare state. Yet, by overturning Roe v Wade, these six U.S. Supreme Court Justices have given us a police state and a nanny state. Physicians who care for women can and will be criminally charged if citizens in states where abortion is now illegal, decide that those physicians helped a woman to obtain an abortion that THEY think is wrong. We have a nanny state because SCOTUS has decided that women cannot be trusted to decide what is best for them, their bodies, or their families. Their competence will be supplanted by the state's decision. We will have a police state as some States will attempt to track down and prosecute women who seek and get abortions in other States. This is not true conservativism… it is intolerable fanatical authoritarianism of people imposing their religious beliefs on others.



Once again women, the poor, and children are the ones most hurt by powerful religious zealots who don't understand or care about their lives. Who are these people to decide whether a pregnancy is a gift or a curse? That is for the woman who has to bear that child and care for that child. If it was truly the desire of right-wing Republicans to value each and every child, then our foster care system would be empty, no child would be raised in poverty and we would have single-payer national health care. But that is not the case and many of the no abortion states won’t even expand Medicaid. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.



Looking down the road, these six SCOTUS Justices supposed ideological rationalized originalism of the U.S. Constitution is a means to affirm novel legal interpretations grounded in present-day right-wing grudges, as what the Constitution intended all along. It is now plausible that every time those grievances shift, the interpretations will shift with them, even as the Justices scour history anew for confirmation of ideological conclusions they would never question, even if they failed to find it. That is ultimately why no rights that Americans currently possess are safe from this Court. The core conservative belief about our country’s culture war is that there is a Real America that is conservative, and a usurper America that is liberal. This is the primary means of constitutional interpretation for the Court’s current majority, not historical research and not legal analysis. And while the justices will both pretend and insist otherwise, the public needs to recognize this fact and not believe for a second their vow that other constitutional rights are safe from being overturned and eliminated.



Now we know that the Republican Party and this current Supreme Court, is controlled by extremists who contort U.S. Constitutional law to match their extreme religious beliefs. We also now know for certain that a vote for Republicans is a vote for outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape, or incest, at every stage of pregnancy, including the morning after pill. There is nothing defensible, or even tolerable, about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress or in state legislatures, warping of the federal and state judicial systems to impose by force, policies that they cannot achieve through votes in elections. Now that they all feel emboldened with this ruling, what other rights will they take away…?



In my opinion, nakedly partisan hacks abusing lifetime positions to tyrannize over the citizenry and undermine democracy cannot be permitted to wield power. What should be done now? These are my idealized recommendations:

-Impeach Clarence Thomas for supporting Donald Trump's insurrection.

-Impeach Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for lying during their Senate confirmation hearings.

-Impose 9-year term limits on SCOTUS judges so every president has 4 picks and every annual SCOTUS term has a new member.

-When the Democrats have control of Congress with at least 60 votes in the Senate, expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 Justices. Then also create a system of cycling off two Justices each year, with cases to be assigned randomly to an ever-changing set of nine justices.

-Vote in ALL primaries and general elections! Not just all Democrats, but newly awakened Independents, Libertarians, educated suburban Republican women.

-Eliminate the arcane Electoral College.

-Add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as the 51st and 52nd States.

-American women must withhold sex from Republican men until they get this ruling changed. ;)

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222005)

U.S Supreme Court Ruling Rescinds Roe v. Wade (6-24-2022)

In their unprecedented decision, the 6 Supreme Court Justices in this majority ruling are not even pretending to follow the rule of law and tossed precedent out the window, ignoring stare decisis. Never before had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right that an earlier court has affirmed, not once, but twice, (Roe and Casey). What they have done is a shocking decision that is a very depressing and dystopian setback to the rights of Americans.

Regarding this ruling, Maureen Down succinctly stated in her 6/24/22 NY Times Op-Ed column the following:

“Over the last three decades, I have witnessed a dismal saga of opportunism, fanaticism, mendacity, concupiscence, hypocrisy and cowardice. This is a story about men gaining power by trading away something that meant little to them compared with their own stature: the rights of women……
Women’s rights had to take a back seat to Trump’s ego and ambition and McConnell’s desire for a conservative court that would pull back the reach of the government, denying protections to Americans who need or value them. They pushed through three conservative justices — one had to defend himself against sexual assault charges and one was in a weird “Handmaid’s Tale”-style extreme fundamentalist Catholic sect — and that was checkmate for Roe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court was supposedly the one institution in our tri-partite constitutional republic that was presumably intended to be non-political and devoid of all biases. That ideal is obviously no longer the case and may not have been since their Bush v. Gore ruling back in 2000. Looking back, we can now see that four of the six Justices who were in the majority overturning Roe v. Wade all had one thing in common during their Senate confirmation hearings: they lied under oath. All 4 of them said or inferred, in so many words, that “Roe v. Wade is settled law.”

In their ruling, these six justices have shown that they are intellectually lazy and really do not care about the people they serve. They work in a privileged, protected environment and insulated ivory tower. They rationalize their rulings on their personal reading and IMHO, warped historical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives and Republicans press the view that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to what their text was originally understood to mean, often referred to as “originalism”. Liberals and Democrats tend to argue that the framers defined rights in general terms to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning by applying them in new ways in response to new societal understandings and conditions that they could not conceive of at that time.

I strongly believe that basic human rights, like the right to decide what happens to your body, should not be decided by six unelected U.S. Supreme Court Justices. What they did with this ruling is just bald-faced activism. Sadly, this court is now revealed to be a very bad and sad joke and due to their 6-person right-wing ideological majority, no one can expect to have a fair and impartial ruling from them. It is also very concerning as to what future cases they may take and rule on that would possibly reduce or curtain other rights granted by earlier court decisions.

Simply put, these Justices are purely motivated by their right-wing ideology and conservative dogmatic religion and ruled this way because they could. The arrogance and unapologetic nature of the written opinion and final ruling is truly breathtaking and clearly sums up what the US Supreme Court majority is today: religious and politically motivated zealots. This majority has proven that their suspected reputation as partisan religious hacks is completely accurate. It is not just the end of the Supreme Court as an impartial judicial referee. On this important topic, these six, unelected Justices represent the minority extreme right-wing ideology in this country and unfortunately are allowed to decide how the rest of us live. Ultimately, the result of this ruling is the total loss of trust, as well as respect for and legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court by the American public. How much longer will the majority of Americans tolerate this imbalance and injustice in our ever increasing polarized and divided country?

Unfortunately, I also believe that this ruling will most likely mean an accelerated hollowing out of rural backward-thinking states as young people flee the abrogation of women’s rights, and all the other trappings of religious fundamentalism, including violence towards gays, intransigent racism, anti-science education, xenophobia, etc. Yet still, those economically doomed states will wield increasingly disproportionate and extremist power because of our flawed Constitution giving them disproportionate voting power in the U.S. Senate, not based on total population.

To me, the political hypocrisy is mind boggling. Historically, conservatives say they do not want a police state, or a nanny state, or a welfare state. Yet, by overturning Roe v Wade, these six U.S. Supreme Court Justices have given us a police state and a nanny state. Physicians who care for women can and will be criminally charged if citizens in states where abortion is now illegal, decide that those physicians helped a woman to obtain an abortion that THEY think is wrong. We have a nanny state because SCOTUS has decided that women cannot be trusted to decide what is best for them, their bodies, or their families. Their competence will be supplanted by the state's decision. We will have a police state as some States will attempt to track down and prosecute women who seek and get abortions in other States. This is not true conservativism… it is intolerable fanatical authoritarianism of people imposing their religious beliefs on others.

Once again women, the poor, and children are the ones most hurt by powerful religious zealots who don't understand or care about their lives. Who are these people to decide whether a pregnancy is a gift or a curse? That is for the woman who has to bear that child and care for that child. If it was truly the desire of right-wing Republicans to value each and every child, then our foster care system would be empty, no child would be raised in poverty and we would have single-payer national health care. But that is not the case and many of the no abortion states won’t even expand Medicaid. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Looking down the road, these six SCOTUS Justices supposed ideological rationalized originalism of the U.S. Constitution is a means to affirm novel legal interpretations grounded in present-day right-wing grudges, as what the Constitution intended all along. It is now plausible that every time those grievances shift, the interpretations will shift with them, even as the Justices scour history anew for confirmation of ideological conclusions they would never question, even if they failed to find it. That is ultimately why no rights that Americans currently possess are safe from this Court. The core conservative belief about our country’s culture war is that there is a Real America that is conservative, and a usurper America that is liberal. This is the primary means of constitutional interpretation for the Court’s current majority, not historical research and not legal analysis. And while the justices will both pretend and insist otherwise, the public needs to recognize this fact and not believe for a second their vow that other constitutional rights are safe from being overturned and eliminated.

Now we know that the Republican Party and this current Supreme Court, is controlled by extremists who contort U.S. Constitutional law to match their extreme religious beliefs. We also now know for certain that a vote for Republicans is a vote for outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape, or incest, at every stage of pregnancy, including the morning after pill. There is nothing defensible, or even tolerable, about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress or in state legislatures, warping of the federal and state judicial systems to impose by force, policies that they cannot achieve through votes in elections. Now that they all feel emboldened with this ruling, what other rights will they take away…?

In my opinion, nakedly partisan hacks abusing lifetime positions to tyrannize over the citizenry and undermine democracy cannot be permitted to wield power. What should be done now? These are my idealized recommendations:
- Impeach Clarence Thomas for supporting Donald Trump's insurrection.
- Impeach Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for lying during their Senate confirmation hearings.
- Impose 9-year term limits on SCOTUS judges so every president has 4 picks and every annual SCOTUS term has a new member.
- When the Democrats have control of Congress with at least 60 votes in the Senate, expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 Justices. Then also create a system of cycling off two Justices each year, with cases to be assigned randomly to an ever-changing set of nine justices.
- Vote in ALL primaries and general elections! Not just all Democrats, but newly awakened Independents, Libertarians, educated suburban Republican women.
- Eliminate the arcane Electoral College.
- Add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as the 51st and 52nd States.
- American women must withhold sex from Republican men until they get this ruling changed. ;)

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222024)

I agree with all your recommendations. And Republican women withholding sex would be very effective and turn this around very quickly, great idea!

Originally Posted by Happy (Post 1222025)

Ahh.. It all makes sense now! You are a devout and proud leftist..

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222032)

EODguy:

None of your 1-6 points makes any sense.....:dunno:

I am fully aware that there are people in this country who will disagree with my statement of both facts and opinion in my original post here. I do respect those who present valid contrary points, yet am bemused that you fail to even attempt to dispute my key points.....

Clearly, our system of government has obvious flaws and failings.

I have already explained the failing of this incarnation of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress has become a roadblock for any legislation that attempts to make life better for the majority of Americans. Its members, both in the Senate and House are more concerned about pleasing their true financial benefactors, the lobbyiests who represent the major industries in our country, not the constitutents who voted them into office. They are only interested in perpetuation a facade of public service while reaping all the rediculous perks for them and their families, (i.e. healtcare for life, etc.).

I agree with others who have recommended the ideal of imposing term limits to all member of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would even suggest that the POTUS be only able to serve one (1) 6-year term in office with no ability to ever run for that office again. It would save much time and effort and money and allow that person to focus on the challenging job for their entire term.

While I am not directing this to you....ultimately, it is unfortunate, but it is my opinion that it is pointless attempting to have a civil discussion or even a debate with some people in this forum who are unable to clearly articulate one or more valid points, or stoop to beligerent and unfounded personal accusations.... But alas, that is the sad reality of what most social media has devolved into and Xoutpost is not imune to it....

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222029)

It was humor with a great underling message to me. I didn't think I needed to add a laughing emoji.

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222036)

I listen to many congressional so called debates. More often than most of the time is spent slamming the other party rather than any attempt to get something done.

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222032)

While I am not directing this to you....ultimately, it is unfortunate, but it is my opinion that it is pointless attempting to have a civil discussion or even a debate with some people in this forum who are unable to clearly articulate one or more valid points, or stoop to beligerent and unfounded personal accusations.... But alas, that is the sad reality of what most social media has devolved into and Xoutpost is not imune to it....

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222050)

This escalated quickly... will have to read the previous page to catch up.

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222050)

In the meantime. My opinion on this is simple. Freedom of choice. Making abortions illegal takes away a choice. It's much more conservative (excepting religion, sorry Happy) to have abortions be a legal option. We don't have to agree with someone's choice, but we should, respect it. Again, excepting religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222050)

If the CPS and adoption system were in any way capable of handling all the unwanted babies of the world I'd be all for banning abortion. But that is not the case.

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222050)

This escalated quickly... will have to read the previous page to catch up.

In the meantime. My opinion on this is simple. Freedom of choice. Making abortions illegal takes away a choice. It's much more conservative (excepting religion, sorry Happy) to have abortions be a legal option. We don't have to agree with someone's choice, but we should, respect it. Again, excepting religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Happy (Post 1222052)

I just found out today, at close to 50 years old, that I will be a DaD for the fifth time in my life. Termination is the last thing on my mind.

Originally Posted by Happy (Post 1222052)

My wife once told me that, accepting a child that is not biologically ours, would be a blessing. I get it, but I don’t think I totally understand it. One thing is for sure, that every child in this world deserves Love!

If a day comes, that I will be tasked to father a foster child. I ask that, you pray for me, wish me good luck, or give good thoughts to my situation. Because, it is one of those things that has been on my mind for many years.

I hope I am capable, if I am required to perform this responsibility.

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222056)

Happy:

I have never said, nor have I implied that “Christians and Republicans should cease to exist”, nor do I propose “canceling” them. I do have an issue as to how both that religion and political party have evolved so radically in our country over the past 40-50 years.

As a 50-something male, you certainly seem to be rather confused, if not selective in your interpretation of Christianity. You bizarrely state: “Religion is a farce, The Christ is a Force, not a religion…” That is a real head-scratcher of a statement! Also, I find that statement very surprising coming from you, based on what you have previously written about your interpretation of Christianity.

I do not believe that religion is a farce. Simply put, I understand and believe religion(s) to be a shared social and cultural belief system, based on faith, establishing moral and ethical behavior for humanity, as well as an attempt to explain the challenging practical, spiritual and transcendental questions of how and why our world was created and subsequent world views including social behavior.

As per your inferences regarding my original post, there is an interesting link to women in Christianity. The Christian Bible has numerous authors and interpretations starting many years after the death of Jesus Christ, let alone the extreme differences between the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. I belive that today's Christian Bible is the interpretation of many men, evolved over many years, as to the teachings of the prophet Jesus Christ. I do not belive in the absolute literal belief in what it says, let alone it being "the word of God". It was written by men and in many ways is serving their intended purpose. You may or may not be aware that in the earliest practices of Christianity that women were truly considered the equal of men. It was not until much later on, under the Catholic church’s evolution of establishing their doctrine that they subjugated women to be more subservient to men. In Europe and South America, the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular, has been to impose a control over the poor, uneducated masses and in its most fundamental distillation, the power of men over women.

Stepping back, I do agree with the philosophical belief of our founding fathers that when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, followed by the Bill of Rights, and while certainly influenced by their Christian heritage coming from England, they felt strongly in the concept of the separation of Church and State. We know that the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, (i.e. either a state or national religion), hence known as “the establishment clause”. This means that no government agency, including public schools, can impose or promote a religious doctrine, including creationism.

Therefore, I respect that you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, as do I. The main problem that I have with the 6 right-wing Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is that I do not want them, (or you or anyone else…), to force and impose their or your religious beliefs on me.

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222050)

This escalated quickly... will have to read the previous page to catch up.

In the meantime. My opinion on this is simple. Freedom of choice. Making abortions illegal takes away a choice. It's much more conservative (excepting religion, sorry Happy) to have abortions be a legal option. We don't have to agree with someone's choice, but we should, respect it. Again, excepting religious beliefs.

If the CPS and adoption system were in any way capable of handling all the unwanted babies of the world I'd be all for banning abortion. But that is not the case.

Originally Posted by AVB-AMG (Post 1222057)

Happy:

From your posts, it sounds as if you are a fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian. I have been absent from this forum for a bit, so I checked out some our previous exchanges on other thread topics and now remember that is the case. I will repeat myself to you, but for the benefit of some others who have not read those earlier threads, here is some personal history to help understand where I am coming from.

My mother was raised Catholic and my father was raised Lutheran and when they married, they decided to meet halfway in religious doctrine and compromise and became Episcopalians. For them, as Christians, they clearly did not have absolute devotion to a particular denomination branch of Christianity. I was baptized, raised, educated and confirmed as an Episcopalian.

I did not have that exposure to in-depth religious education in high school and foolishly, elected not to take any religious history courses in college, for which I deeply regret with 20/20 hindsight. So, I have made up for it by reading and listening to audio books on different religions to learn about them. I strongly believe that in this day and age especially, with so much of the strife in the world predicated by age old religious beliefs, prejudices and disputes, it is vital that America’s youth, (and adults), proactively learn and gain a basic accurate knowledge and understanding of the world’s religions and their associated beliefs, values, practices, traditions and as importantly, their influence on individuals, communities, societies and cultures.

Once students have had this education and can then reflect upon the experiences and the mysteries of life and the various contributions, (both positive and negative), that religion has played throughout history up to present day, then they hopefully will appreciate what is different and what is the same about all of us. Then and only then, will they be in an ideal position to consider and form their own feelings, opinions regarding religion and decide what they believe.

So as a student of history, I have had growing doubts along with many valid suspicions of all the traditional established formal religions. We know that throughout history, more blood has been shed in the name of religion or God. I appreciate the general benevolent and charitable aspects of these religions, but do not agree with many of their arbitrary dogmatic rules that they preach for their followers to abide by. Years ago, I gave up attending, let alone contributing money to the Episcopal church. Instead, I try to live a moral and ethical life and have chosen to contribute either cash or material items such as clothing, to charities that I believe truly help other people, where most of my donation actually goes towards their stated cause and not to support or perpetuate their bureaucracy, (i.e. my preferred charities include our regional food bank and The American Red Cross, etc.).

As a result of my ongoing quest to explore different religions, cultures and being exposed to different ideas, and thoughtfully considering them, I would say that spiritually, I am currently more closely aligned with the natural beliefs of Deism. FYI - some of America's founding fathers were said to be deists or at the very least, had deist leanings, and included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington Essentially, the belief in reason and nature leading to the acceptance and existence of a supreme being, that I choose to refer to as God, who was the creator, who got everything started, but does not intervene after that, does not answer prayers and is indifferent. I find that I am more sympathetic to the deist beliefs than all of the rules and teachings of the other traditional, main line religions of including Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. I am intrigued by some of the thoughtful teachings of Buddhism but need to learn more about it before I can form an opinion about it. I also accept the scientific understanding of the evolution of life and also believe that in my lifetime that I (we), will never know the answers to all of life's larger questions. I would also be comfortable being referred to as a rational secular humanist who has an ongoing urge to continue my education, learning new things, before I form my opinion.

I do not profess to have all the answers and admit that I am not always correct, but the fundamental belief and goal that I have is: to respect others’ beliefs, even when I disagree with them. We all can live peacefully together as long as you do not force your religious beliefs on me and others.

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222060)

Congrats! Realize, I don't know your circumstances but I hope congratulations are in order. :thumbup:


Agree! Wish it were possible.



My BiL and his wife have been going through the adoption process now for about 3 years. It's a mess. They've lost 3 kids so far (after having them in the home in 2 cases)... They are stronger than I ever could be to even adopt, let alone keep at it after so much heart break.



^Because of stories like that and failures of CPS to protect children is why I support abortion rights. Unwanted babies aren't good for the baby, the parents, or our society. The majority of the offenders might be "hoe bags," "cumdumpsters," or shitty men who produce those children, but the sad fact remains, it's the child who pays the price in a majority of cases.

Originally Posted by Happy (Post 1222038)

This thread is actually very crude.

The post is just short of out right stating that Christians, and republicans should cease to exist. And that somehow, this is the solution to a particular parties problems.

The sex joke insinuates that, canceling a generation of republican’s children, will also somehow solve this parties problems as well.

Christians have existed for thousands of years, long before the democratic party was founded. And we will continue to Live long past its dissolution.

It very obvious that the op has zero biblical knowledge. Because if he or she had any, they would know how many parties have tried and failed to destroy us.

This infantile country is like a toddler throwing a tantrum when it doesn’t get its way. The unfortunate thing is, there are parties that will continue the tantrums until she’s out breath. No breath, no life.

Many empires have fallen over the past 6 thousand years of human history. But, none of this is new to a true Christian. We’re still here, hated, but alive. The amazing thing though, we’re taught that Our Lord And Savior, The Christ Yeshua was hated first, therefore there is no need to carry that burden. So as the kids say, “haters are going to always hate”!

The Christ himself said, “Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s”. There is no religious or political party for a True Christian.

I get the notion from this post, and the recent public grumbling, that soon there will be a push to cancel the Christians.

It is definitely not the first attempt, there have in fact been many attempts. The fact that even just one Christian exists, proves that Yeshua’s presence is very real! There are billions of Christians today, and it seems the more they try to destroy the body, the larger the body becomes. Simply amazing!

Religion is a farce, The Christ is a Force, not a religion! The Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be canceled. There will be attacks on the body, but this is nothing new.

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222744)

We are man, why pretend to understand or try to dictate how they should care for their own body?

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222744)

A pragmatist would find common ground and strive to provide solution to what is largely a woman’s health decision.

We are man, why pretend to understand or try to dictate how they should care for their own body?

Originally Posted by EODguy (Post 1222763)

Probably because....

1. It ends the life of a person who has completely different DNA.

2. Men who are 50% of the childs DNA should have a say, unless you think abortion is fine for a birth control method and then the man should be able to have a woman either abort a child he doesn't want (like women do to men) or make her have the child and take custody upon birth with the woman (who doesn't want the baby) paying him child support until adulthood.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222809)

I think abortion should be legal and be a decision made by the woman. I don't think there can be a caveat stating it is illegal after X numbers of months.

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222810)

I think it should be a woman's decision too. How does one get to have a say on something that happens on another person's body?

It's their body, their autonomy. Any guidelines a government makes should only be about the health of the woman and her baby.

Politics never should've had a place on this issue.

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222829)

I think it is impossible that a bill can be passed with any guidelines. There never will be enough agreement to pass a bill with any days/weeks/months limitations and if and what are the exceptions to any limitations.

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222840)

It maybe impossible due to the current political climate, but it's still something that we should look into in the future, especially now with the Roe overturn.

Women chooses to have an abortion for multitudes of reasons. A lot of them health related, many of them financially related.

For the health related cases, maybe the hospital can provide a guideline for the doctors so they have a list that they can go over to provide better care for the woman and her pregnancy.

For instance, if a couple has been trying to have a kid for the longest time but the wife keeps suffering from miscarriage due to whatever health reasons, then there should be a guideline that provides for fast track on her procedure so the fetus that no longer has a heartbeat can be safely and quickly removed from the mother.

Right now due to the Roe vs Wade overturn, many abortion clinics are scared of performing such a procedure even if the mother's health depends on it. Many tests are required to determine the exact status of the fetus which unnecessarily prolongs the suffering of the mother and increases the chances of her having septic shock due to having to carry the dead fetus much longer than necessary.

Here's a link to the case I'm referring to: https://people.com/health/beauty-you...n-on-abortion/

As for financial reasons, you live with the decision you make whether you are ok with it later on down the road, or regrets it years later.

Either way it's her body, her life, and ultimately her decision.

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1222845)

:iagree: I think we are on the same page. I think the best avenue is to reinstate Roe verses Wade rather than try to get agreement on what some think are appropriate new guidelines. There would be no confusion and there wouldn't be circumstances like happened in your link.

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222840)

It maybe impossible due to the current political climate, but it's still something that we should look into in the future, especially now with the Roe overturn.



Women chooses to have an abortion for multitudes of reasons. A lot of them health related, many of them financially related.



For the health related cases, maybe the hospital can provide a guideline for the doctors so they have a list that they can go over to provide better care for the woman and her pregnancy.



For instance, if a couple has been trying to have a kid for the longest time but the wife keeps suffering from miscarriage due to whatever health reasons, then there should be a guideline that provides for fast track on her procedure so the fetus that no longer has a heartbeat can be safely and quickly removed from the mother.



Right now due to the Roe vs Wade overturn, many abortion clinics are scared of performing such a procedure even if the mother's health depends on it. Many tests are required to determine the exact status of the fetus which unnecessarily prolongs the suffering of the mother and increases the chances of her having septic shock due to having to carry the dead fetus much longer than necessary.



Here's a link to the case I'm referring to: https://people.com/health/beauty-you...n-on-abortion/



As for financial reasons, you live with the decision you make whether you are ok with it later on down the road, or regrets it years later.



Either way it's her body, her life, and ultimately her decision.

Originally Posted by EODguy (Post 1222872)

That is 100% false.

An abortion is the medical procedure to remove a (viable) fetus from the mother.

A fetus that has died in utero is no longer viable and is not subject to any abortion restrictions/regulations anywhere in the United States.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Maruzo (Post 1222889)

I don't think we are in disagreement. But you start your post with "100% false", that seems to discount everything I said.

Not cool.

I don't disagree with anything you posted. And I don't think what I said is wrong either...

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1222903)

I understand what you mean, I am for legal abortions for reasons I have outlined in this thread (and some that I haven't).

I think EOD was saying your case-in-point for your position is not valid. Which it isn't. No reason to be sensitive about the way he phrased it.

This is a religious issue that someone is not going to convince pro life supporters to change minds on. Which is fine, but there is no other supporting anti-abortion position to have on it other than the religious aspect, that holds water. Or, at least I haven't heard it yet. Even the conservative position (which I consider myself, middle right to be exact) would be more freedom of choice and autonomy.