(09-15-2021 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The pro-life movement was really more evangelicals and neocons than libertarian conservatives/republicans. I am very much in the latter group, but really did not see Reagan leaning too far toward the former.

You should google this a little more. As early as 1976, Reagan came out as pro-life, and ran on that. It's what got the ball rolling for the GOP to be pro-life. A condition for Bush to be his running-mate in 1980 was to become pro-life as well. Keep in mind Reagan was pro-choice before 1976 and Bush was pro-choice before 1980. The original sin definitely can be attributed to Reagan when he "converted" in 1976. The pro-life momentum just picked up after that when the Nixon fiasco unfolded.

And this pattern of desperation for votes by catering to the pro-life movement (despite not actually believing in it at heart) continued in the GOP throughout the decades, with the most recent example being Trump. They all signed on with the devil, leaving future generations to deal with the aftermath.

(09-15-2021 09:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The allegation of “blatant unconstitutionality” of this law is precisely the matter at issue before the judicial system. You demand that the Supreme Court decide the issue before hearing the case — indeed, before the trial court hears the case — and suggest that failing to do so would be a reversal of judicial precedent. I’m sorry but that’s just not how judicial precedent works. Not even close.

I never suggested they decide the case. Only suggested they hold precedent (as they all swore to do so under oath during their nomination hearings) by not allowing a law to go into effect during the deliberation process that would have the net effect of banning abortion, like the court has done so for the past several decades until now.

When a judicial nominee has to outright lie under oath or at the very least shadily and creepily avoid answering questions on this topic and others in their confirmation hearings, you KNOW they can not be trusted on the highest court in the land. When this started happening in the early 90's with Thomas, you knew the pact with the devil was in blood, and it was only a matter of time before we'd all have to pay for it.

(09-15-2021 09:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It was approximately the same time (1970’s) that the Democrats (at the National level) embraced the pro-choice movement on abortion. Some consider *that* to have been (and still is today) “a deal with the Devil”. But using that kind of descriptive language has had no impact on Democrats/pro-choice people, and it is equally meaningless when used against Republicans/pro-life people.

Pro-choice was bi-partisan up until Reagan suddenly saw the light on the issue (like Trump) in 1976 in a desperate fake attempt to get votes. Democrats never really moved from their position, as they never wanted to politicize it as it was a private issue of choice.

But if you still don't believe in the devil, here might be the first sign that he has arrived. Newsom in CA was clearly in trouble up until a few weeks ago. Then the Supreme Court went nuts. As soon as that ruling came down, the tide turned. Dems felt the heat from the devil. It rallied them, and as of right now Newsom's vote count is 63.8%, which is 2% higher than the 61.8% he got when he was first elected. It will likely go even higher in the final tally.

You can believe this is a coincidence. History would say you're wrong.

Quote:I never suggested they decide the case. Only suggested they hold precedent (as they all swore to do so under oath during their nomination hearings) by not allowing a law to go into effect during the deliberation process that would have the net effect of banning abortion, like the court has done so for the past several decades until now.

In true fashion, you make a blanket true statement at the 80,000 foor level, but forget the details.

Do you even know *why* the SCOTUS chose *not* to put forth an injunction?

The following terms might help, and their interplay.

Ripeness, proper plaintiff, proper defendant.

The meat of the case *might* have a proper defendant, it *might* have a proper plaintiff, and it *might* have the *requirement* of actual case or controversy between the proper defendant and the proper plaintiff.

In this case, none of that is really certain.

it may very well be that the actual operation of Texas bill 8 is unconstitutional. A smart abortion rights group would encourage a doctor to perform an abortion contrary to the statute, and perform it. Next, a smart abortion rights group would have *one of its own members* initiate suit (at law, anyone can, if you remember). Then, at that point, you have an actual case or controversy, and readily proper defendant and plaintiff.

At that point you can join the state, that is, question the state law itself and how or what the state action actually is and how it impacts the issue.

But no, leave it to the really dumb*** ones to point to this (really bad) setup of a case to rail on 'precedent' and whatever word based and cloudy diarrhea to spew forth on this.

And yes, the idea of 'no damage' standing for plaintiffs is stupid and disgusting. You neglect that that concept is the poster child of the left when used in environmental litigation.

I find it quite fun to see that abortion of a concept thought of and implemented finally used adroitly by the right. Pretty damn amusing to see the progressives work themselves up in a lather over it, when it is their bastard child of convenience *and* used in a heavy manner by them.

(09-15-2021 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 01:28 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's [sic] payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.

The so-called "voodoo" economics ushered in a remarkably long period of prosperity, so much so that pretty much all of western Europe took note and emulated--or went even further.

As far as the Equal Rights Amendment, nothing deserved more to die.

The pro-life movement was really more evangelicals and neocons than libertarian conservatives/republicans. I am very much in the latter group, but really did not see Reagan leaning too far toward the former.

The pro-life movement was essentially a Catholic movement until Reagan.

The very term "right to life" was invented by Pope Pius XII in a 1951 papal encyclical.

The National Right to Life Committee (the largest and oldest pro-life organization) was founded in 1966 by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It remained under the bishops' control until 1973 when they decided to become independent in an attempt to persuade Protestants.

The March for Life was started in 1974 by Nellie Gray, a Catholic activist, in coordination with the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic men's group).

(09-16-2021 02:05 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Pro-choice was bi-partisan up until Reagan suddenly saw the light on the issue (like Trump) in 1976 in a desperate fake attempt to get votes. Democrats never really moved from their position, as they never wanted to politicize it as it was a private issue of choice.

False. There were lots of pro-life Democrats in those days, just as there were lots of pro-choice Republicans. Both have become scarce over the past 40-50 years, as both camps have consolidated their position within 1 national party.

By the way, the reason that abortion was nationalized as a political issue really had nothing to do with Nixon, even though you have name-dropped him a few times in this discussion. The reason that abortion became a major litmus test in national politics is because of Roe v Wade. Up until 1973, abortion was worked out in a state-by-state basis. Roe v Wade commanded that the issue be taken away from local politics and that one side — the pro-choice side — would have its views embedded into the nation’s basic law, and the other side — the pro-life side — would have its views rejected by the nation’s basic law. Politically, everything to do with abortion since 1973 is a result of that. National politics quickly became polarized around the issue, where it has remained for 49 years.

Quote:But if you still don't believe in the devil, here might be the first sign that he has arrived. Newsom in CA was clearly in trouble up until a few weeks ago. Then the Supreme Court went nuts. As soon as that ruling came down, the tide turned. Dems felt the heat from the devil. It rallied them, and as of right now Newsom's vote count is 63.8%, which is 2% higher than the 61.8% he got when he was first elected. It will likely go even higher in the final tally.

I readily acknowledge that California is a pro-choice state and has been for a long time. I believe it has rejected every pro-life candidate (statewide) since 1988. Newsom’s victory is nothing new and does not signify any broader changes on a national level, either on the issue of abortion or of anything else.

The Unsung Death of ‘My Body, My Choice’

Quote:As late as 3:43 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, the long-lived mantra of the pro-abortion movement, “My Body, My Choice,” was still showing signs of life. It was at that time, that the White House published the remarks made by Vice-President Kamala Harris at a “Reproductive Rights” roundtable.

“The President and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies,” said Ms. Harris.

“And, needless to say,” Harris continued much too quotably, “the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.”

So far is Harris out of the White House power loop that she may not have known the mantra had less than two hours to live.

Quote:On the same Thursday Harris was endorsing “My Body, My Choice,” Biden was endorsing “drastic and Spartan methods.” Death came suddenly to the old mantra, if not unexpectedly. Just 79 minutes after Harris breathed new life into it, President Joe Biden put the mantra out of its misery. Biden told America in no uncertain terms that the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is his, not theirs. Going forward the new understanding is, “Your Body, My Choice.”

“As your President, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated, to combat those blocking public health,” said the president. “This is not about freedom or personal choice.” That much was obvious. The president’s mandate, by his own estimate, would affect two-thirds of all workers or about 100 million Americans, nearly half of them female. And except perhaps for those women working for the Post Office, there was nothing “negotiable” about this assault on their bodily integrity.

Scarier still, Biden was not talking in euphemism. He was actually talking to women about “their” bodies. Not surprisingly, NARAL remains stone silent, and Harris is not “speaking here.” It is hard to defend a con, even a venerable one like “My Body, My Choice.” Meanwhile, real freedom lovers have mischievously adopted the abortion rights credo as their own, and leftists fume in dismay, having been cruelly hoisted on their own petards.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles...hoice.html

(09-16-2021 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you even know *why* the SCOTUS chose *not* to put forth an injunction?

They did not do so because 5 extremists on the court lack common sense. It's that simple. So much so that at least one of the 4 with common sense broke precedent by eliminating the word "Respectfully" from their dissent statement, which is basically giving the others the middle finger. Even Bush appointed chief justice Roberts strongly dissented against the extremist view. And here we have you (obviously lacking in sense yourself) siding with the extremists. Do you not pay attention to history at all? Are you excited the court is so divided now it's almost inevitable to take a toll on it's legitimacy? Does that make you proud?

(09-16-2021 12:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The pro-life movement was essentially a Catholic movement until Reagan.

So one would think our first openly Catholic President (Biden) coming out against it would officially end the movement.

(09-16-2021 12:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  By the way, the reason that abortion was nationalized as a political issue really had nothing to do with Nixon, even though you have name-dropped him a few times in this discussion. The reason that abortion became a major litmus test in national politics is because of Roe v Wade. Up until 1973, abortion was worked out in a state-by-state basis. Roe v Wade commanded that the issue be taken away from local politics and that one side — the pro-choice side — would have its views embedded into the nation’s basic law, and the other side — the pro-life side — would have its views rejected by the nation’s basic law. Politically, everything to do with abortion since 1973 is a result of that. National politics quickly became polarized around the issue, where it has remained for 49 years.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm just saying it might not have and perhaps probably wouldn't have become politicized if one party didn't find themselves in desperate need for voters. As was mentioned previously, there were both significant numbers pro-choice and pro-life advocates on both sides for decades until Roe. Well I'm saying Roe just opened the door for the politicization. One side still needed motivation to actually politicize it.

If it wasn't for Nixon, then you tell me. What was it? What part of Republican politics at that time favored pro-life more than that on the Democratic side. I'd argue Democrats were more likely to take up the pro-life stance given that it were the Republican majority on the Supreme Court that finally gave up the ghost by letting Roe pass down. Also Republicans historically favored women's rights. They are the reason why we have the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote.

(09-13-2021 07:12 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

So. With your logic we should kill people when they turn 37 also because that was the average life expectancy in the US in 1800. Brilliant.

Except according to Logan's Run. it's simply called "Renewal!"

Just wondering.. where things like smallpox and polio and those other little items that barely exist anymore fit in Scooby-Doo's reasoning. Oh wait, you didn't account for that did you?

(09-06-2021 11:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  You've got to hand it to the "original intent" conservatives to bless us with the worst judicial acts in history. This Supreme Court has gone full-on Dred Scott with their recent refusal to strike down the new TX abortion law.

Just like Dred Scott effectively defied decades of precedent in setting up a system where bounty hunters can hunt down blacks for being slaves regardless of whether they were given freedom in a free state or not, so does this new action by the court defy decades of precedent to set up a bounty system for anyone who defies the new abortion law. But in this case it's even worse because there's been well over a century of precedent against this kind of vigilante justice by the court.

Only 7 years after they effectively legalized abortion, Republicans made a deal with the devil back in 1980 when they added pro-life support to their platform in a desperate attempt to get voters after the Nixon fiasco. But the devil is always in the details. And now it's time to pay the piper, just like it was back when Dred Scott was handed down.

You are mentally ill to even go there. Comparing defense of God’s creation to black slaves rights. Gas light much?

(09-16-2021 03:11 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The pro-life movement was essentially a Catholic movement until Reagan.

So one would think our first openly Catholic President (Biden) coming out against it would officially end the movement.

1. Fat chance. 2. Some people say that Kennedy was a Catholic.

Quote:I'm just saying [abortion] might not have and perhaps probably wouldn't have become politicized if one party didn't find themselves in desperate need for voters.

It was McGovern, not Nixon, who got curb-stomped in ’72, and the Democrats, not the Republicans, in 5/6 elections overall from ’68 to ’88. Desperate for votes, anyone?

Look, there have been plenty of political “conversions” on this issue, going both ways, since 1973. Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin and Al Gore are 3 that used to be pro-life and later became pro-choice. Bush/41 was pro-choice and later became pro-life. I have no doubt some of these conversions were sincere and some were not. From the standpoint of history, so what?

It has nothing to do with a “deal with the devil”. It just reflects the social reality that the people of this Nation are deeply conflicted about this issue, the Supreme Court does not have the credibility with the people to impose an enduring Nation-wide solution, and the polarizing tendency inherent within a 2-party system incentivizes groups to sort themselves into opposing camps, based on the issues that are most important to them. That is what happened, and it’s nowhere close to being over, regardless of what SCOTUS does or doesn’t do with the Texas law.

Quote:If it wasn't for Nixon, then you tell me. What was it? What part of Republican politics at that time favored pro-life more than that on the Democratic side.

In the immediate aftermath of Roe v Wade, I believe both camps tried their best to influence both of the major parties. Carter did not run as an explicitly pro-choice nominee and Ford did not run as an explicitly pro-life nominee. Over a period of years — certainly by 1980 — it became obvious that Democrats were going to be the pro-choice party and Republicans were going to be the pro-life party. And that has remained true for more than 40 years.

Edit:
So, why did R end up pro-life and why did D end up pro-choice? there’s about a million pieces to that jigsaw puzzle. But if I had to boil it down to an irreducible core, I’d say that the most deeply/intensely pro-choice segment of the population had already gravitated to the Democrats even prior to Roe v Wade. I’m thinking of people like Bella Abzug, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Schroeder, and cultural influencers like Betty Friedan, Phil Donahue, Gloria Steinem, Hugh Hefner, etc. It was easier for them to box-out pro-life people from positions of leadership among Democrats, than to do so among Republicans. Activists, donors, and office-seekers took the path of least resistance. Perhaps slowly or hesitantly at first, and then the sorting became more obvious and more “locked in” on both sides.

Lol


Sloes* the first openly Catholic POTUS…

History much?



JFK line two, he’d like a word.

Oh, and quick aside, the ERA was not “fully ratified” til potentially 2020… And that is still up for debate and in the courts. Has certainly completely lost any kind of relevance by now.

So…. Much……. Fail….. in all this ^^^ nonsense

Deal with the Devil and Original sIn is being pro-life/anti abortion. World turned upside down. SMDH

(09-16-2021 03:11 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you even know *why* the SCOTUS chose *not* to put forth an injunction?

They did not do so because 5 extremists on the court lack common sense. It's that simple. So much so that at least one of the 4 with common sense broke precedent by eliminating the word "Respectfully" from their dissent statement, which is basically giving the others the middle finger.

When you decide to stop slurping the watercolors from the watercolor painting book you are reciting from, try again.

Quote:And here we have you (obviously lacking in sense yourself) siding with the extremists.

Actually, you have zero idea on what my stance is on the underlying issue. Funny that.

Here is my stance on the ruling on preliminary injunction, mind you. I have zero problem with the issue of 'ripeness', that is, add I will use really short words to decribe this to you -- you need a real plaintiff, a real defendant, and a real issue between those parties.

You ostensibly think that filing suit with some name plucked out the phone book, with a grab bag of defendants, no defendants being named as people who can actually take action, and no plaintiff that come come forward with a tangible injury in the right here and now is -- sufficient, perhaps even good.

Short bus material there on your part, buddy.

Quote:Do you not pay attention to history at all?

I pay attention to the actual opinions and dissents. I suggest you do the same instead of relying on comic book level arguments and comic book level emotive bases.

Quote:Are you excited the court is so divided now it's almost inevitable to take a toll on it's legitimacy? Does that make you proud?

The whine of 'legitimacy' of the court being a concern from an airpocket brain dude who subscribes to the seriously dumb*** notion of 'living constitution' is a real side splitter. And yes, we have had this discussion before.

Please keep typing those semi-random, semi-connected thoughts. You know what they say about putting a million monkeys with a million typewriters.......

(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

The absurdity of your argument is a warped mind twister. A deal with Satan would be with the pro choice = pro exterminator = sin. Not sure if you have ever taken the time to read the Bible to have any clue who the prince of darkness is. In NO way is it ever positive to destroy a life. May God have mercy on us all for allowing the destruction of his creation. That again would be the work of Satan. He obviously lives with you and truly hope you figure it out before its too late.

Do yourself a favor and study near death experiences and see if you are ready for what is to come when you leave here.

Lots of material to go through here, so bare with me.

(09-16-2021 05:06 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 07:12 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So. With your logic we should kill people when they turn 37 also because that was the average life expectancy in the US in 1800. Brilliant.

Except according to Logan's Run. it's simply called "Renewal!"

Just wondering.. where things like smallpox and polio and those other little items that barely exist anymore fit in Scooby-Doo's reasoning. Oh wait, you didn't account for that did you?

The evolution of technology and society enabled the virtual elimination of some childhood diseases, just like it enabled an easier method in which women can choose not to give birth. Regardless of whether you look at early term abortion as murder (which again in my opinion is absurd), the fact of reality is, we have progressed forward in the big picture on personal freedom of choice over our own bodies while at the same time dramatically improving childhood morality, regardless of how much anyone wants to twist it any other way.

(09-16-2021 05:21 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  You are mentally ill to even go there. Comparing defense of God’s creation to black slaves rights. Gas light much?

In my opinion, if you invoke your own personal view of God rather than generally accepted rationality to defend yourself against someone of another religion or faith, you're pretty much at the core of the definition of gaslighting.

(09-16-2021 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It has nothing to do with a “deal with the devil”. It just reflects the social reality that the people of this Nation are deeply conflicted about this issue, the Supreme Court does not have the credibility with the people to impose an enduring Nation-wide solution

I would argue the Supreme Court is the only body which creates the solution, whether it's interpreting an amendment specific to the issue, or short of that, using those not specific to the issue to interpret a solution. Leaving it up to the states MIGHT work over time through oppression if women still eventually effectively have access to abortion (thus retaining the right of choice), just like it ended up working with alcohol. Some counties still ban it, but everyone still has effective choice to obtain it by crossing nearby county lines. Time will tell if abortion works the same way. But if there are pockets where it causes significant oppression like before Roe, the devil will make itself known until there is a solution one way or another.

Quote:So, why did R end up pro-life and why did D end up pro-choice? there’s about a million pieces to that jigsaw puzzle. But if I had to boil it down to an irreducible core, I’d say that the most deeply/intensely pro-choice segment of the population had already gravitated to the Democrats even prior to Roe v Wade. I’m thinking of people like Bella Abzug, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Schroeder, and cultural influencers like Betty Friedan, Phil Donahue, Gloria Steinem, Hugh Hefner, etc. It was easier for them to box-out pro-life people from positions of leadership among Democrats, than to do so among Republicans. Activists, donors, and office-seekers took the path of least resistance. Perhaps slowly or hesitantly at first, and then the sorting became more obvious and more “locked in” on both sides.

All of this doesn't hide the fact that a life-long Republican justice, Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe, basically arguing the right to privacy under the 14th amendment, which makes perfect sense for a party-of-less-government. Republicans didn't start pushing against this less government approach until they oddly took up the pro-life movement and thus created total hypocrites of themselves. The most rational explanation in my opinion is they got desperate after Nixon turned out to be a crook and had to resign since it happened at roughly the same time period.

(09-16-2021 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You ostensibly think that filing suit with some name plucked out the phone book, with a grab bag of defendants, no defendants being named as people who can actually take action, and no plaintiff that come come forward with a tangible injury in the right here and now is -- sufficient, perhaps even good.

Were you not listening when I stated common sense says government is a defendant since they were the ones who deputized the citizens? Again, the last time this was tried was with Dred Scott. And look where that got us. History repeats itself. This isn't going to end any better until the Supreme Court patches this back up in a way it doesn't let the devil out, just like the Civil War motivated them to do so back then.

Quote:The whine of 'legitimacy' of the court being a concern from an airpocket brain dude who subscribes to the seriously dumb*** notion of 'living constitution' is a real side splitter. And yes, we have had this discussion before.

If you knew anything about history, you'd know Dred Scott (widely regarded as the worst decision ever handed down by the Court) was decided on "original intent" ideology. In fact the opinion in that case defending original intent is SO BAD, the ideology was dropped from judicial thinking until, you guessed it, shortly after Roe. The passage of over a century of time was enough for certain desperate people to forget the "devil" in the details of history. And so, it's back!

(09-16-2021 09:59 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The absurdity of your argument is a warped mind twister. A deal with Satan would be with the pro choice = pro exterminator = sin. Not sure if you have ever taken the time to read the Bible to have any clue who the prince of darkness is. In NO way is it ever positive to destroy a life. May God have mercy on us all for allowing the destruction of his creation. That again would be the work of Satan. He obviously lives with you and truly hope you figure it out before its too late.

Do yourself a favor and study near death experiences and see if you are ready for what is to come when you leave here.

Refer to my comment above regarding gaslighting.

(09-19-2021 10:49 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Lots of material to go through here, so bare with me.

(09-16-2021 05:06 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 07:12 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So. With your logic we should kill people when they turn 37 also because that was the average life expectancy in the US in 1800. Brilliant.

Except according to Logan's Run. it's simply called "Renewal!"

Just wondering.. where things like smallpox and polio and those other little items that barely exist anymore fit in Scooby-Doo's reasoning. Oh wait, you didn't account for that did you?

The evolution of technology and society enabled the virtual elimination of some childhood diseases, just like it enabled an easier method in which women can choose not to give birth. Regardless of whether you look at early term abortion as murder (which again in my opinion is absurd), the fact of reality is, we have progressed forward in the big picture on personal freedom of choice over our own bodies while at the same time dramatically improving childhood morality, regardless of how much anyone wants to twist it any other way.

(09-16-2021 05:21 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  You are mentally ill to even go there. Comparing defense of God’s creation to black slaves rights. Gas light much?

In my opinion, if you invoke your own personal view of God rather than generally accepted rationality to defend yourself against someone of another religion or faith, you're pretty much at the core of the definition of gaslighting.

(09-16-2021 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It has nothing to do with a “deal with the devil”. It just reflects the social reality that the people of this Nation are deeply conflicted about this issue, the Supreme Court does not have the credibility with the people to impose an enduring Nation-wide solution

I would argue the Supreme Court is the only body which creates the solution, whether it's interpreting an amendment specific to the issue, or short of that, using those not specific to the issue to interpret a solution. Leaving it up to the states MIGHT work over time through oppression if women still eventually effectively have access to abortion (thus retaining the right of choice), just like it ended up working with alcohol. Some counties still ban it, but everyone still has effective choice to obtain it by crossing nearby county lines. Time will tell if abortion works the same way. But if there are pockets where it causes significant oppression like before Roe, the devil will make itself known until there is a solution one way or another.

Quote:So, why did R end up pro-life and why did D end up pro-choice? there’s about a million pieces to that jigsaw puzzle. But if I had to boil it down to an irreducible core, I’d say that the most deeply/intensely pro-choice segment of the population had already gravitated to the Democrats even prior to Roe v Wade. I’m thinking of people like Bella Abzug, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Schroeder, and cultural influencers like Betty Friedan, Phil Donahue, Gloria Steinem, Hugh Hefner, etc. It was easier for them to box-out pro-life people from positions of leadership among Democrats, than to do so among Republicans. Activists, donors, and office-seekers took the path of least resistance. Perhaps slowly or hesitantly at first, and then the sorting became more obvious and more “locked in” on both sides.

All of this doesn't hide the fact that a life-long Republican justice, Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe, basically arguing the right to privacy under the 14th amendment, which makes perfect sense for a party-of-less-government. Republicans didn't start pushing against this less government approach until they oddly took up the pro-life movement and thus created total hypocrites of themselves. The most rational explanation in my opinion is they got desperate after Nixon turned out to be a crook and had to resign since it happened at roughly the same time period.

(09-16-2021 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You ostensibly think that filing suit with some name plucked out the phone book, with a grab bag of defendants, no defendants being named as people who can actually take action, and no plaintiff that come come forward with a tangible injury in the right here and now is -- sufficient, perhaps even good.

Were you not listening when I stated common sense says government is a defendant since they were the ones who deputized the citizens? Again, the last time this was tried was with Dred Scott. And look where that got us. History repeats itself. This isn't going to end any better until the Supreme Court patches this back up in a way it doesn't let the devil out, just like the Civil War motivated them to do so back then.

Quote:The whine of 'legitimacy' of the court being a concern from an airpocket brain dude who subscribes to the seriously dumb*** notion of 'living constitution' is a real side splitter. And yes, we have had this discussion before.

If you knew anything about history, you'd know Dred Scott (widely regarded as the worst decision ever handed down by the Court) was decided on "original intent" ideology. In fact the opinion in that case defending original intent is SO BAD, the ideology was dropped from judicial thinking until, you guessed it, shortly after Roe. The passage of over a century of time was enough for certain desperate people to forget the "devil" in the details of history. And so, it's back!

(09-16-2021 09:59 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The absurdity of your argument is a warped mind twister. A deal with Satan would be with the pro choice = pro exterminator = sin. Not sure if you have ever taken the time to read the Bible to have any clue who the prince of darkness is. In NO way is it ever positive to destroy a life. May God have mercy on us all for allowing the destruction of his creation. That again would be the work of Satan. He obviously lives with you and truly hope you figure it out before its too late.

Do yourself a favor and study near death experiences and see if you are ready for what is to come when you leave here.

Refer to my comment above regarding gaslighting.

I have no idea where you get MY PERSONAL VIEW in any of this. You are either grossly ignorant of the scriptures or you are defiant of the word. I’m positive after seeing your response you have no idea what is contained in the Bible especially the New Testament.

Jesus clearly explains if you love me you will keep my commandments. First you have to read so you have a understanding of what his commandments are and you won’t find them listening to talking points of politicians. There once was a time God winked at such ignorance but that time has passed.

Let me be as crystal clear as I can be. The things you believe are personal views are what is contained in the Bible as the path to be saved.
My thoughts or views are as fallible as any other man’s. I do not stand on my ideas or thoughts.

(09-16-2021 05:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Lol


Sloes* the first openly Catholic POTUS…

History much?



JFK line two, he’d like a word.

JFK is the perfect example. He is the pro-birth control Catholic that basically ended the controversy surrounding that issue. When he spoke, everyone listened, including Catholics. That's why birth control isn't politicized. Same should apply to Biden regarding abortion.

(09-19-2021 11:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 05:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Lol


Sloes* the first openly Catholic POTUS…

History much?



JFK line two, he’d like a word.

JFK is the perfect example. He is the pro-birth control Catholic that basically ended the controversy surrounding that issue. When he spoke, everyone listened, including Catholics. That's why birth control isn't politicized. Same should apply to Biden regarding abortion.

So, you are in favor of destroying God’s creation as a matter of convenience? You personally need to answer this question and not hide behind talking points.

Good gosh why do you guys continue feeding trolls? You are never ever going to get a straight answer to any of your questions from this one and his positions, fluid as they are, will change within one paragraph.

He's loving all the attention though.

(09-19-2021 10:49 PM)scorpius Wrote:  the Supreme Court is the only body which creates the solution, whether it's interpreting an amendment specific to the issue, or short of that, using those not specific to the issue to interpret a solution. Leaving it up to the states MIGHT work over time through oppression if women still eventually effectively have access to abortion (thus retaining the right of choice), just like it ended up working with alcohol. Some counties still ban it, but everyone still has effective choice to obtain it by crossing nearby county lines. Time will tell if abortion works the same way. But if there are pockets where it causes significant oppression like before Roe, the devil will make itself known until there is a solution one way or another……

a life-long Republican justice, Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe, basically arguing the right to privacy under the 14th amendment, which makes perfect sense for a party-of-less-government. Republicans didn't start pushing against this less government approach until they oddly took up the pro-life movement and thus created total hypocrites of themselves. The most rational explanation in my opinion is they got desperate after Nixon turned out to be a crook and had to resign since it happened at roughly the same time period.

We’re talking in circles here, just repeating what’s already been said. I have tried to refrain speaking about the issue of abortion itself here and will not start now.

But three parting points:
1. The idea of the Supreme Court “creat[ing] the solution” to this issue. Wow. They’ve been trying since 1973, and the people overall have never swallowed the medicine. “Time will tell”, in your phrase, if they ever do, but I will candidly predict that they never will. Issues like this, which touch on freedom, sex, life and death, and the definition of the term “human being” are just not amenable to a “solution” from a committee of 9 lawyers, none of whom were elected by the people, deliberating in secret with life-tenure, and making grandiose philosophical pronouncements when the spirit moves them to do so.

Incidentally: for someone who has Dred Scott on the brain, it’s curious that you would be so eager for the judicial branch to try and “solve” this. The Court tried to do that with slavery in 1857 and the result was catastrophic.

2. Harry Blackmun was a life-long Republican, ’tis true. The idea that his thoughts and writings would therefore bind all other Republicans forever and ever is… not convincing to me. By the way, Roe dissenter Byron White was a life-long Democrat. Should his views on the issue similarly bind Democrats?

3. Again with the Nixon angle, LOL. We’ve now had ~47 years since Nixon resigned, and ~41 years since the pro-life movement emerged as a force within national GOP campaigns. My honest question to you: can you cite any published source — from anyone at all — who thinks the former caused the latter? or did you think that up on your own?

(09-20-2021 08:11 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But three parting points:
1. The idea of the Supreme Court “creat[ing] the solution” to this issue. Wow. They’ve been trying since 1973, and the people overall have never swallowed the medicine. “Time will tell”, in your phrase, if they ever do, but I will candidly predict that they never will. Issues like this, which touch on freedom, sex, life and death, and the definition of the term “human being” are just not amenable to a “solution” from a committee of 9 lawyers, none of whom were elected by the people, deliberating in secret with life-tenure, and making grandiose philosophical pronouncements when the spirit moves them to do so.

Incidentally: for someone who has Dred Scott on the brain, it’s curious that you would be so eager for the judicial branch to try and “solve” this. The Court tried to do that with slavery in 1857 and the result was catastrophic.

Tried? There is no trying about it with the Supreme Court. What they say IS the solution. If it doesn't work, they create refinements. But what they say goes and is the solution until they make a change. They are by far the most powerful branch of government. Sadly, the orders and laws coming from the other two branches or even decisions from beneath them from their own branch are just "suggestions" to what the Supreme Court will ultimately rule as the solution to any and all problems.

Quote:2. Harry Blackmun was a life-long Republican, ’tis true. The idea that his thoughts and writings would therefore bind all other Republicans forever and ever is… not convincing to me. By the way, Roe dissenter Byron White was a life-long Democrat. Should his views on the issue similarly bind Democrats?

I was just pointing out reasons why it was so strange for Republicans (or any party for that matter) to start politicizing the issue right after we got effectively a bi-partisan solution.

Quote:3. Again with the Nixon angle, LOL. We’ve now had ~47 years since Nixon resigned, and ~41 years since the pro-life movement emerged as a force within national GOP campaigns. My honest question to you: can you cite any published source — from anyone at all — who thinks the former caused the latter? or did you think that up on your own?

I've read it from nowhere. Yet I have read no other rational explanation for why Republicans went pro-life. The only comparison I can make is the Prohibition era. When one side gets desperate, they take desperate measures.. and what better way to gain a lot of votes fast than to side with the religious community. History says you'll pay for it in the end, but as long as that end takes decades, who cares right? The Republican party has basically been transformed from a strong anti-regulation party, to an anti-science, Ancient Alien party as a result of this. And now we're starting to pay for it.

You'd think some people would get tired of embarrassing themselves.