(06-27-2022 08:29 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 07:31 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Man I really do not want to go down this rabbit hole, but I have to.

Religion needs to be kept out of this discussion. In the catholic belief system Abortion is a sin and this is fine. But the Catholic religion is not the only religion out there and (obviously) not everyone is on board with it.

I am not taking any sides on the abortion issue only on the use of religion as the reason. I cannot remember which thread but I saw a comment along the lines of the red states are not telling the blue states what to do, but the blue states are trying to force their views on the red states .... or something like that. This is basically the same thing. Many are using a religious argument to ban Abortion which is ideological not scientific.

For many people, they are simply not concerned and/or do not believe in judgement day or at least that they will be judged [for an abortion] and therefore no amount of guilt shaming, threats, or "theological" what ifs are going to change their mind.

Lies. The red states (and SC) are literally letting the blue states do whatever they want with this issue.

Ummm that was my point? The blue states can do what they want and the Red states are not forcing them one way or the other, but the Blue states are trying to force the Red states to do what THEY want on this issue. Abortion is not illegal on a federal level they are just not protecting it one way or the other.

What will be most interesting is when the legislature of a state flips. What happens then? Will abortion be "fluid" depending on who is in charge? Georgia is a decent example. What happens if Jabba The Hut wins the Governors chair? That state could jump from red to blue at every election and abortion could be on or off each time as a result... ?


Frankly - I think Abortion should be codified into the constitution (one way or the other), rather than all this back and forth.

(06-27-2022 08:42 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:29 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 07:31 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Man I really do not want to go down this rabbit hole, but I have to.

Religion needs to be kept out of this discussion. In the catholic belief system Abortion is a sin and this is fine. But the Catholic religion is not the only religion out there and (obviously) not everyone is on board with it.

I am not taking any sides on the abortion issue only on the use of religion as the reason. I cannot remember which thread but I saw a comment along the lines of the red states are not telling the blue states what to do, but the blue states are trying to force their views on the red states .... or something like that. This is basically the same thing. Many are using a religious argument to ban Abortion which is ideological not scientific.

For many people, they are simply not concerned and/or do not believe in judgement day or at least that they will be judged [for an abortion] and therefore no amount of guilt shaming, threats, or "theological" what ifs are going to change their mind.

Lies. The red states (and SC) are literally letting the blue states do whatever they want with this issue.

Ummm that was my point? The blue states can do what they want and the Red states are not forcing them one way or the other, but the Blue states are trying to force the Red states to do what THEY want on this issue. Abortion is not illegal on a federal level they are just not protecting it one way or the other.

What will be most interesting is when the legislature of a state flips. What happens then? Will abortion be "fluid" depending on who is in charge? Georgia is a decent example. What happens if Jabba The Hut wins the Governors chair? That state could jump from red to blue at every election and abortion could be on or off each time as a result... ?


Frankly - I think Abortion should be codified into the constitution (one way or the other), rather than all this back and forth.

Sorry man. I completely misunderstood the post. I re-read it and dyslexia got me or something.

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

This is rather interesting.

When Roe v. Wade was first decided, it was not a religious ruling whatsoever...and in fact, must religious folks took little issue with it.

It wasn't until the religious right took it over and made it a political issue to bolster the base of the Republican party.

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...but it wasn't a post about the current religious nature of this ruling, it was a post attacking my faith and quoting a bunch of Bible verses toward me which had nothing to do with this ruling.

I've made it clear that I don't want any abortions to take place, but that's just not reality. I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.

I am CLEARLY at ease with my position and how it aligns with being a Christian. I have not had an abortion...I'm a guy. I have not counseled anyone to have an abortion. I have committed no sin here by being in favor of others who may have different religions than me, or no religion at all, to make decisions over their own life and body. If you think I'm a ghoul, or are not a Christian, or am going to Hell, you can think whatever you want. I'm content in my soul.

But we'll see what Christians do now. Will they put time, money and effort into things like universal health care for pregnant mothers who don't have means during and after birth? Will they work to adopt or make adoption easier and cheaper? Will they support adoptions by same sex couples and single parents? Will they support pre-k education and child care...and more subsidies to make it affordable? Will they support school lunch programs? And on and on... They had no problem putting time and money into donating to Republican candidates, supporting fake Christians like trump who was antithetical to nearly every teaching of Jesus, standing outside PP offices, and holding hands in protests, etc.

Let's see now how much they care about the babies.

(06-27-2022 08:26 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 02:59 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 02:24 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  When they are born. Doesn't make them any less HUMAN that they must spend time growing inside their mothers. Only a sick or evil piece of **** can't acknowledge the humanity of another person based on needs.

I completely get it. That's why my position is that after a certain number of weeks when the baby can be born and breath on its own, no abortions unless the pregnancy was from rape/incest or if the life of the mother/baby is at stake under consultation from medical personnel.

And further, if it were me, being a guy who can't have one of course, I would never counsel anyone to have one outside of those qualifiers I mentioned above. But in the end, it's not up to me.

Are you putting this word salad together poorly or do you literally support infanticide? That reads as you believe in abortion all the way up to the baby can breath on it's own and even after that for your qualifiers.

Yes, I CLEARLY support babies being able to be killed by their mother after they are born.

The notion that you even entertain this complete and utter talking point about infanticide is pathetic. You're better than this.

You know what I meant. I want a time frame in law that denotes an agreed upon number of weeks after conception that a fetus can be aborted in utero to be established, and it should be inline with when a fetus can be removed from the womb and usually breath on its own. My personal preference is 20 weeks. So no abortions after 20 weeks unless the pregnancy was the result of a rape or incest, or if the life and health of the mother and/or baby is an issue after consultation with the medical professionals caring for the mother.

Dress it up however you want but at the end of the day you're OK with killing the peak of God's creation which was created in His image.

No, liar, I'm not.

(06-24-2022 10:47 PM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  If an admin wants to ban me, ban me. I don't give a ****.

**** every single one of you who bitched and moaned about employers mandating a vaccine in an attempt to stop a worldwide pandemic and are now fine with the government allowing states to force women to carry a pregnancy to term. From the bottom of my heart, **** each and every one of your old, crusty, fear mongering, racist ********.

And on top of that, if you support the states that don't even allow exemptions for instances of rape.... There's a special place in hell for your evangelical bull****.

hoes be mad....

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

This is rather interesting.

When Roe v. Wade was first decided, it was not a religious ruling whatsoever...and in fact, must religious folks took little issue with it.

It wasn't until the religious right took it over and made it a political issue to bolster the base of the Republican party.

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...but it wasn't a post about the current religious nature of this ruling, it was a post attacking my faith and quoting a bunch of Bible verses toward me which had nothing to do with this ruling.

I've made it clear that I don't want any abortions to take place, but that's just not reality. I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.

I am CLEARLY at ease with my position and how it aligns with being a Christian. I have not had an abortion...I'm a guy. I have not counseled anyone to have an abortion. I have committed no sin here by being in favor of others who may have different religions than me, or no religion at all, to make decisions over their own life and body. If you think I'm a ghoul, or are not a Christian, or am going to Hell, you can think whatever you want. I'm content in my soul.

But we'll see what Christians do now. Will they put time, money and effort into things like universal health care for pregnant mothers who don't have means during and after birth? Will they work to adopt or make adoption easier and cheaper? Will they support adoptions by same sex couples and single parents? Will they support pre-k education and child care...and more subsidies to make it affordable? Will they support school lunch programs? And on and on... They had no problem putting time and money into donating to Republican candidates, supporting fake Christians like trump who was antithetical to nearly every teaching of Jesus, standing outside PP offices, and holding hands in protests, etc.

Let's see now how much they care about the babies.

"Religious people didn't care about it."
"The religious took it over."

(06-27-2022 09:06 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

This is rather interesting.

When Roe v. Wade was first decided, it was not a religious ruling whatsoever...and in fact, must religious folks took little issue with it.

It wasn't until the religious right took it over and made it a political issue to bolster the base of the Republican party.

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...but it wasn't a post about the current religious nature of this ruling, it was a post attacking my faith and quoting a bunch of Bible verses toward me which had nothing to do with this ruling.

I've made it clear that I don't want any abortions to take place, but that's just not reality. I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.

I am CLEARLY at ease with my position and how it aligns with being a Christian. I have not had an abortion...I'm a guy. I have not counseled anyone to have an abortion. I have committed no sin here by being in favor of others who may have different religions than me, or no religion at all, to make decisions over their own life and body. If you think I'm a ghoul, or are not a Christian, or am going to Hell, you can think whatever you want. I'm content in my soul.

But we'll see what Christians do now. Will they put time, money and effort into things like universal health care for pregnant mothers who don't have means during and after birth? Will they work to adopt or make adoption easier and cheaper? Will they support adoptions by same sex couples and single parents? Will they support pre-k education and child care...and more subsidies to make it affordable? Will they support school lunch programs? And on and on... They had no problem putting time and money into donating to Republican candidates, supporting fake Christians like trump who was antithetical to nearly every teaching of Jesus, standing outside PP offices, and holding hands in protests, etc.

Let's see now how much they care about the babies.

commietom would rather see the babies killed.

California Lt. Governor Calls for Defiance of Supreme Court Decision

Quote:The question occasionally arises as to how I and my fellow California denizens whose work populates these pages manage to stay in the rather tarnished Golden State. The answer is twofold. One, this is our home; a place worth fighting for despite the seemingly ever-increasing odds. Two, no place else on earth save Washington DC provides such a consistently rich supply of ready-made material for analysis and discussion. Hollywood may be the world’s entertainment capital, but it takes little effort to reveal multiple locations for the stuff in steady streams.

The latest laugh riot comes from California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis — yes, she is a Democrat — coming out with this amazing comedy routine that, even by the network on which it aired standards, namely MSNBC, was a tad over the top. From Breitbart:

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Katy Tur Reports,” California Lt. Gov. (D) Eleni Kounalakis (D) said that people should “be prepared to live in defiance of these six people who think that they have the right to tell you what you can do with their body.” And the court is “undermining their legitimacy.” Because it isn’t “legitimate for them to take that right away from us. They cannot tell millions of American women what to do with their bodies.”

So … making abortion a state-level issue is telling women what to do with their bodies. Ohhhhhkay then. One could argue this stunningly sidesteps the whole matter of what rights an unborn child has regarding not being chopped alive into pieces, but that is a debate for another time.

What stands out even above Kounalakis’ open advocation of defying the law, which as a Democrat in California she is well-versed, as anyone who’s taken a gander at the southern border can testify, is her odd dismissal of Supreme Court justice Clarance Thomas. Is it racist? Not really, but it is interesting.

“Who is Clarence Thomas? Is he my Saudi Arabian father who’s going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, with my life? That’s what this is coming down to,” Kounalakis said.

Imagine if you will a Republican lieutenant governor making this comment, substituting Sonia Sotomayor for Thomas and Mexican mother for Saudi Arabian father. The media meltdown would be immediate and omnipresent. Yet Kounalakis can demean a minority — two, actually, in the derogatory reference to a presumably conservative practicing Muslim father with the Saudi Arabian reference — and get zero pushback? It must be nice.

To her credit, MSNBC’s Katy Tur offered at least some minimal pushback to Kounalakis’ defiance call.

Later, Tur asked, “I understand where you’re coming from, where you believe you’re coming from. But in telling people to defy the Supreme Court, are you not worried about what message that sends for anything else the Supreme Court might rule on that you might agree with and others might not agree with?”

Kounalakis responded with more drivel and dribble about women’s God-given rights regarding their bodies, thus revealing she has no clue about what God Himself has said regarding the matter.

Ah, California. It’s never dull around here.

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...

Should I post a picture of my shocked face, or no?

(06-27-2022 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...

Should I post a picture of my shocked face, or no?

(06-26-2022 11:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:13 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:10 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Just provide universal prenatal and maternal care and be done with it.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Would be nice but the right does not care about that

Yeah, the side fighting to murder babies are the ones who truly care about the children.

Neither side cares about babies mate. They just care about fundraising on the issue and trust me, donations were a coming the last 2 days on either side.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Well, one side wants to kill babies.

The other side wants to protect babies.

That's a stark difference right there.

But Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption non-profits contradict your statement as well.

There are more than 2 million US couples annually waiting to adopt -- more than twice the number of aborted babies each year at current rates of just under 1 million per year.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers help women through their pregnancies with emotional, physical and health care at no cost. They do this to help women who decide not to go through with abortions.


So yeah, there really are people who care about babies -- and women -- on one side of this argument.

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me how Planned Parenthood received government funding, but would donate millions to the Democratic Party and PACs.

(06-26-2022 12:31 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 12:27 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Big man thinks siding with the feminists will get him laid... for the first time.

I'm thinking dude needs to be red flagged.

(06-26-2022 12:52 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:42 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:13 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Would be nice but the right does not care about that

Yeah, the side fighting to murder babies are the ones who truly care about the children.

Neither side cares about babies mate. They just care about fundraising on the issue and trust me, donations were a coming the last 2 days on either side.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Politicians are politicians, but most pro life people are NOT pro life for the sake of money.

We see abortion as murder because it is.

70 million aborted babies is perhaps the single most horrific genocide in human history.

I agree you are, you've been consistent the whole time Ive known your existence on this board. If republicans cared, there would be universal maternity care. We could argue on the details but the premise would be there. If democrats cared they would agree that there has to be some limits to abortion. Probably at the 15 weeks we have in Florida.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Logic does not dictate that the only way to care is to provide state-run medical for pregnant women.

(06-26-2022 01:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:12 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

Andrew Yang Says Democrats Only Have Themselves to Blame for Supreme Court Overturning Roe V. Wade

Quote:Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang tweeted Friday that Democrats only have themselves to blame after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Yang argued Democrats wasted decades by not codifying Roe v. Wade into law, leading to the Supreme Court overturning it in a landmark decision Friday.

“It feels like Democrats owe their people an apology for being bad at their jobs — they had a long time to codify Roe v. Wade, defend a balanced court, get RBG to step down, etc. Instead they got played and trounced. ‘Help undo our failures!’ is not a compelling rallying cry,” Yang tweeted.

“The people who are going to get hurt by this the worst will be poor women in red states, while the folks who played politics with this will glide along and email people for money,” he continued.

Can it be codified into federal law when the authority of this issue doesn't lie with the federal government but lies with the states?

Isn't that the entire point of the SCOTUS ruling? It's not in the Constitution so be default it belongs with the states.

To "codify" it into the Constitution it would have to go through the amendment process. And there's no way in Hades 38 states will vote in favor of an abortion amendment.

The left only has themselves to blame for the reversal. They just kept pushing and kept pushing, got more and more extreme... meanwhile, most conservatives had come to accept a reasonable compromise. Nope... wasn't enough. They wanted abortions up until and sometimes after birth. Sorry - for anyone upset about the ruling, you only have yourself to blame.

(06-26-2022 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/w...ar-AAYPQUi
In case Turley's article hasn't been posted:

"...While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks.)..."

That's not what anyone dancing over this decision supports though. It's going to be interesting what the GOP does now, because they are the dog that caught the car. If you are someone that truly believes Abortion is Murder then why on earth would you be okay with it being up to each individual state? When the GOP takes back both houses and the presidency that part of the base is likely to demand that they outlaw abortion nationwide, and sure that's not an extremely large % of the nationwide population you can't just ignore those people as GOP politicians because they are dedicated, well funded, and a powerful portion of the GOP base. So I'm curious to see what happens next.

This conservative wants abortions banned period. I might -- might -- see it if it's to save the life of the mother, but most women would sacrifice themselves to save their baby.

This is another leftist emotional talking point to garner support for baby murder using an extreme to justify abortion on demand for any reason at any time.

But I'm also good with the current decision to leave it to the states.

While I would love a federal ban by amending the Constitution, I think it might be interesting to see how states fare based on where they align on the issue of saving babies vs killing babies.

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.

Would you settle for a country where we acknowledge this is a very divisive issue and, depending upon where you are at, you may be in the minority, thus we should allow it to be settled at a more local level?

(06-27-2022 09:31 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 01:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:12 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

Andrew Yang Says Democrats Only Have Themselves to Blame for Supreme Court Overturning Roe V. Wade

Quote:Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang tweeted Friday that Democrats only have themselves to blame after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Yang argued Democrats wasted decades by not codifying Roe v. Wade into law, leading to the Supreme Court overturning it in a landmark decision Friday.

“It feels like Democrats owe their people an apology for being bad at their jobs — they had a long time to codify Roe v. Wade, defend a balanced court, get RBG to step down, etc. Instead they got played and trounced. ‘Help undo our failures!’ is not a compelling rallying cry,” Yang tweeted.

“The people who are going to get hurt by this the worst will be poor women in red states, while the folks who played politics with this will glide along and email people for money,” he continued.

Can it be codified into federal law when the authority of this issue doesn't lie with the federal government but lies with the states?

Isn't that the entire point of the SCOTUS ruling? It's not in the Constitution so be default it belongs with the states.

To "codify" it into the Constitution it would have to go through the amendment process. And there's no way in Hades 38 states will vote in favor of an abortion amendment.

No, but they will try. Prior to this ruling they could have codified it, and made it tougher for the SC to shoot it down and clean it up. This is what Ginsberg was worried about. She said the original Roe V Wade ruling ended the debate on the matter, and she was afraid of the day it would get overturned, because even she admitted RoeVWade was a flawed decision.

The issue with trying to codify it now is that it wont make much difference. If they pass a federal law legalizing it, then people run the risk of that law getting overtutrned and being exposed to the penalties of breaking state law. And some of the penalties are quite severe. So it would basically be a law that does nothing and one day gets overturned.

(06-27-2022 09:06 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!

This is rather interesting.

When Roe v. Wade was first decided, it was not a religious ruling whatsoever...and in fact, must religious folks took little issue with it.

It wasn't until the religious right took it over and made it a political issue to bolster the base of the Republican party.

And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...but it wasn't a post about the current religious nature of this ruling, it was a post attacking my faith and quoting a bunch of Bible verses toward me which had nothing to do with this ruling.

I've made it clear that I don't want any abortions to take place, but that's just not reality. I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.

I am CLEARLY at ease with my position and how it aligns with being a Christian. I have not had an abortion...I'm a guy. I have not counseled anyone to have an abortion. I have committed no sin here by being in favor of others who may have different religions than me, or no religion at all, to make decisions over their own life and body. If you think I'm a ghoul, or are not a Christian, or am going to Hell, you can think whatever you want. I'm content in my soul.

But we'll see what Christians do now. Will they put time, money and effort into things like universal health care for pregnant mothers who don't have means during and after birth? Will they work to adopt or make adoption easier and cheaper? Will they support adoptions by same sex couples and single parents? Will they support pre-k education and child care...and more subsidies to make it affordable? Will they support school lunch programs? And on and on... They had no problem putting time and money into donating to Republican candidates, supporting fake Christians like trump who was antithetical to nearly every teaching of Jesus, standing outside PP offices, and holding hands in protests, etc.

Let's see now how much they care about the babies.

"Religious people didn't care about it."
"The religious took it over."

You drove straight to the core and exposed RWT's failure to grasp basic logic.

+3