U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,309
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,012
Country
Poland
Well, a rabid atheist might claim that holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing in a magic bearded man in the sky automatically makes you sound like a nut who shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The opposite is also true. A rabid Christian might claim that not holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing everything came about by random chance cheapens the sanctity of life, and somebody so callous shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The separation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion, allows both religious and non-religious people to hold office, as well as to believe things that other people think are bad.
The entire point of freedom of (and from) religion is that your belief status does not, and should not, disqualify you from any government position. As such, her personal beliefs are immaterial. The only qualification required is a good grasp of law, particularly the Constitution, and other assorted historical documents. She’s perfectly qualified for the position.
Evidence is usually scarce in cases of rape. Unless you can gather DNA evidence immediately, it's just going to be a "he says, she says" situation.
Ford had ample opportunity to file a police report at the time. The matter was thoroughly investigated and it was concluded that her testimony has more holes than Swiss cheese. I can’t base my judgement on he-said-she-said - either there’s evidence of impropriety or not. The man is innocent, unless he can be proven guilty. Since he was not found guilty in a court of law, calling him a rapist is slander. We’ve been over this, in this specific section, and we arrived at the conclusion that slanderous accusations have no place on the board. Everyone was up in arms when the other side of the aisle was calling Joe Biden a rapist (he was also accused of sexual impropriety, not to mention his weird penchant for sniffing people), but when it’s Kavanaugh we’re supposed to accept accusations at face value. Double standards are not a good way to have a balanced debate - either we’re calling both of them rapists based on nothing *or* we follow the “innocent until proven guilty” train of thought and don’t throw baseless accusations around. I don’t care either way - the man’s not a rapist, he was never convicted of rape.
Trying to murder the Vice President and members of Congress is nonetheless serious, even if the people were too disorganised to have a plan for actually overthrowing the government after halting Biden's election certification.
Trying to, or talking crap during a riot? Nobody denies that a riot took place. If memory serves, when arsonists tried to burn down a federal building during the BLM riots, we called that a “summer of peace”. I can’t muster the strength to care about a bunch of crazies entering a building, making a mess and then leaving in an orderly fashion when prompted to. At the end of the day, what happened doesn’t fit the definition of an insurrection - there was no forward planning, no organised group of individuals with a plot and no actual attempt to overthrow the government. It was a large group of very discontent citizens who took out their frustrations in the worst way possible. Those are the findings of America’s top law enforcement agency, and I have no reason to distrust those findings. If anything, given prior record of anti-Trump bias within the F.B.I. (lest we forget the Strzok messages, or the fabricated Steele dossier that launched a long investigation into absolutely nothing), the fact that they found nothing to support the insurrection theory is even more convincing than if the investigators were unbiased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skelletonike

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
390
Trophies
0
XP
519
Country
United States
would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?

In that specific circumstance the baby is going to die so there should be no reason it shouldn't be removed, but this circumstance isn't your normal pregnancy. The removal from what I can tell pertains of specialized surgery. This is not a normal abortion procedure that we all have been discussing.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,309
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,012
Country
Poland
would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?
This is an interesting point, and one that was addressed long before the birth of Christ, if we’re talking strictly about religious reservations against abortion. Jewish tradition explicitly permits abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, be it by medical circumstances like pre-natal complications, or the risk of suicide if the woman is adamant that she will resort to self-harm if she is forced to carry to term. In fact, fetuses are called “merely water” until they reach 40 days of gestation. It’s in the Mishnah, so if Christianity and Islam are based on Jewish religion, presumably the same rules could apply. If we’re talking strictly about passages in the Bible, the book of Exodus features a passage about this issue. If a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, but no other injury is sustained, the man is to be fined to the extent decided by the husband. If further injury is present (which presumably means grievous injury/death), the man is to be put to death - life for a life. Clearly, from a religious standpoint, ending the life of an unborn child is not considered murder, or if it is, it doesn’t carry the same penalty as the murder of a full-grown person. It’s worth noting that both the Torah and the Bible prohibit “spilling the blood of man in man”, which is broadly understood as a prohibition of abortion, but it’s not considered murder, if Exodus is anything to go by. The Jewish word used in reference to a forced miscarriage translates to “accident” or “misfortune”.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
322
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,489
Country
United States
The entire point of freedom of (and from) religion is that your belief status does not, and should not, disqualify you from any government position.
That's what I said. I was responding to your assertion that the accusations are fabricated. To some people, having or lacking religious belief is all the evidence they need that somebody is unqualified. The critical difference is that those people are not in charge of confirming judges to the SCOTUS, because if they were, using such a standard would be unconstitutional.

If memory serves, when arsonists tried to burn down a federal building during the BLM riots, we called that a “summer of peace”.
Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.
 

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
390
Trophies
0
XP
519
Country
United States
Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.

I remember the entire left wing news establishments calling them not only that, but "mostly peaceful protests". They supported the thousands of riots and then when a single right wing one takes place they pounce on it completely overlooking what their side has done (arson, looting, raping, murder, destruction of property, trespassing, oh did I mention "arson"?).
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,309
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,012
Country
Poland
That's what I said. I was responding to your assertion that the accusations are fabricated. To some people, having or lacking religious belief is all the evidence they need that somebody is unqualified. The critical difference is that those people are not in charge of confirming judges to the SCOTUS, because if they were, using such a standard would be unconstitutional.
Of course. Thing is, we’re having a discussion in public, so other than you being the recipient, there are others following the exchange. As such, it’s often prudent to get into a little more detail and clarify a position. That sometimes involves stating the obvious.
Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.
The mayor of Seattle called the wave of BLM riots that sweeped the country a “summer of love”. It’s on tape - I didn’t come up with it, Jenny Durkan did. How am I supposed to interpret that if not as a double standard?

EDIT: Slight correction. Now that I look it up, she was more specifically referring to the whole Chaz/Chop debacle, which was no less egregious considering these people took over and vandalised a police precinct (needless to say, state property) and four city blocks.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...tmosphere_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
322
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,489
Country
United States
I remember the entire left wing news establishments calling them not only that, but "mostly peaceful protests".
My understanding is that there were many peaceful protests, and there were also many riots. I don't have numbers to be able to comment on whether "mostly peaceful" is an accurate assessment. I would like to think that at least 51% of the protests were peaceful, but since violence generates more clicks, I have no doubt that the protests that turned violent got more coverage than the protests where everyone obeyed the law, so it might seem like a higher percentage of protests were violent than peaceful, even if that was not the case.

The mayor of Seattle called the wave of BLM riots that sweeped the country a “summer of love”.

I meant that those of us who try not to treat politics like a team sport where "our side is always right" did not condone those riots. The rules should be the same for everybody, and rioting should be condemned, regardless of why people are doing it. When you said, "we" called it a summer of peace, I interpreted that as "we the people", not "we the news media".
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,309
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,012
Country
Poland
I meant that those of us who try not to treat politics like a team sport where "our side is always right" did not condone those riots. The rules should be the same for everybody, and rioting should be condemned, regardless of why people are doing it. When you said, "we" called it a summer of peace, I interpreted that as "we the people", not "we the news media".
I used the royal “we”, but of course you are right. I very much doubt anyone can really condone riots in their deepest heart of hearts, that’s not how you institute long-lasting change. It only breeds further resentment, and the way the media has approached the issue of rioting over the last few years is both schizophrenic and polarising. I was always under the impression that the constitution guaranteed the right to peacefully protest for redress of grievances, I never imagined that at some point we’d be looking the other way as cities burn and stores are being looted. It is what it is, I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
381
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
964
Country
United States
I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?

Who's making excuses? I think if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome. However, not every case is black and white and this overturn is a blanket effect that affects everyone. You're condemning every woman to the same fate regardless of happening. It's akin to punishing every crime with death, regardless of whether it's murder itself or jaywalking.


By voting for people who are against abortion or voting myself against it could possibly result in me seeing less of my money going towards performing them.

Good luck.


How the baby came to be isn't my concern. Was she raped and became pregnant? That's not the child's fault, the child in which you are killing because it's something you simply don't want.

I mean if a 14 year old gets raped by her father and forced to keep the baby, how badly do you think the mother actually wants the baby? But see, this stance highlights how the Republican party in general tends to inadvertently show its lack of human empathy and understanding. The "only" portion they care about is the death of a baby; not how it gets here, not what it's born into, not what happens afterward. At that point, it's a control issue, not one that's in the best interest of the individuals involved.
 

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,488
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
9,995
Country
United States
The only relevant factor is whether Roe v. Wade is constitutional or not. If it’s not constitutional then it must be repealed.
You yourself admit there's an implicit right to privacy written into the constitution, and it doesn't get any more private than a pregnant woman discussing the possibility of needing to terminate that pregnancy with her doctor. I continue to hold the position that the reasoning for overturning Roe is much more unconstitutional than the reasoning behind the initial decision establishing it as precedent. It's also obvious that the justices of the time were far more impartial on this topic, whereas naked political and religious motivations show up everywhere in the majority opinion overturning it.

Being religious doesn’t disqualify anyone from holding a position on the court.
No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should. I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.

My mistake. I disagree with your characterisation of the Democratic Party as "largely Christian", though. The Republican line that Democrats are all godless heathens is a straw man, but there is some truth in it, since the number of Americans who identify as religious has been declining for years, AFAIK.
Correct, but despite that decline, the religious minority continues to hold undue power over our laws and government. How many of our federal representatives identify as practicing Christians? 80%? More?

If you want to accomplish something important, you should do it in the right way when such a method exists.
When such a method exists, sure. As I already said though, there's no point in the last fifty years where we would've had the votes necessary to codify Roe into federal law. At a time when our rights are actively under attack, I'll take an expansion of rights however I can get it. And if the only language some of these authoritarians understand when it comes to defending our rights is violence, so be it.

Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views.
Precisely my point: she represents the 1700 people in her puritanical, medieval cult, and therefore she's incapable of representing anyone else. Just her being on the bench qualifies as giving preferential treatment to those extremist beliefs, let alone allowing her to vote on issues where her beliefs present a serious conflict of interest.

On top of that, at least three justices lied under oath about their intentions to overturn Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings. That alone should be enough to trigger a recall in a properly functioning system, as lying about this one thing could mean they lied about absolutely everything else too.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
322
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,489
Country
United States
No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should. I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.
The problem is, who gets to decide what qualifies as an insane cult and what qualifies as a religion that enjoys Constitutional protections? Scientology isn't that much crazier than Christianity; it's just newer.

As I already said though, there's no point in the last fifty years where we would've had the votes necessary to codify Roe into federal law.
Well of course not, since Democrats gave up the fight for abortion rights after Roe and blithely assumed it would never be overturned, despite Republicans having exactly that as a major plank of the party platform ever since.

At a time when our rights are actively under attack, I'll take an expansion of rights however I can get it. And if the only language some of these authoritarians understand when it comes to defending our rights is violence, so be it.
In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,309
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,012
Country
Poland
You yourself admit there's an implicit right to privacy written into the constitution, and it doesn't get any more private than a pregnant woman discussing the possibility of needing to terminate that pregnancy with her doctor. I continue to hold the position that the reasoning for overturning Roe is much more unconstitutional than the reasoning behind the initial decision establishing it as precedent. It's also obvious that the justices of the time were far more impartial on this topic, whereas naked political and religious motivations show up everywhere in the majority opinion overturning it.
No, I didn’t. I said the constitution covers aspects of privacy, not privacy itself.
No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should. I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.
Who decided that and when? Religion is religion. If this is your main complaint, all that tells me is that you don’t actually believe in constitutional protections.
In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.
“When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here? :lol:
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,488
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,671
Country
Japan
“When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here?

This is the most potent lesson I am learning from this thread. End justifies the means for some people. For those people, more words are needed to explain simple truths. Otherwise their ideology risks being undone.
 

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
390
Trophies
0
XP
519
Country
United States
My understanding is that there were many peaceful protests, and there were also many riots. I don't have numbers to be able to comment on whether "mostly peaceful" is an accurate assessment. I would like to think that at least 51% of the protests were peaceful, but since violence generates more clicks, I have no doubt that the protests that turned violent got more coverage than the protests where everyone obeyed the law, so it might seem like a higher percentage of protests were violent than peaceful, even if that was not the case.

I think your misunderstood what I wrote. The liberal left wing media was calling the riots themselves "mostly peaceful protests".

Who's making excuses? I think if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome. However, not every case is black and white and this overturn is a blanket effect that affects everyone. You're condemning every woman to the same fate regardless of happening. It's akin to punishing every crime with death, regardless of whether it's murder itself or jaywalking.

I think you should be focused on the people who create the baby and not on random strangers like me that share no responsibility for their actions. You seem to be making excuses for the parents not taking care of their children. You stated "if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome", yet this only applies to me and not the actual people who created the child? Where's the outrage for the parents not taking care of their child? Why are you focused on random strangers as opposed to the people who are actually responsible for the child? Your priorities are all messed up.
 
Last edited by JonhathonBaxster,

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,488
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
9,995
Country
United States
The problem is, who gets to decide what qualifies as an insane cult and what qualifies as a religion that enjoys Constitutional protections? Scientology isn't that much crazier than Christianity; it's just newer.
Scientology is all about indentured servitude, and Barrett's "People of Praise" is all about trying to return society to the dark ages. Both are objectively cult-like in their beliefs and everyday operations.

Well of course not, since Democrats gave up the fight for abortion rights after Roe and blithely assumed it would never be overturned, despite Republicans having exactly that as a major plank of the party platform ever since.
We've been over this, it's not that they "gave up," it's that they never had fifty pro-choice Dems in the Senate. There are always just enough DINOs to block progress, and that's largely by design. A two-party system is always going to be fundamentally broken.

In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.
You're putting words in my mouth, I specifically said that if violence is required in defense of our rights, then so be it. With any luck it won't be required, as SCOTUS has no real power to enforce the decisions they make anyway, but the way things are going it seems they might rely on fascists and religious extremists to do that for them.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

Creamu

lowEMFradGAMER
Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
1,373
Trophies
0
XP
1,363
Country
Brazil
“When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here?
This is the most potent lesson I am learning from this thread. End justifies the means for some people. For those people, more words are needed to explain simple truths. Otherwise their ideology risks being undone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,488
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,671
Country
Japan

While I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, it does make me think about something. Who owns "fake news"? Propaganda is an idealogy's best friend. Those who speak against cults are probably in competition.
 

Creamu

lowEMFradGAMER
Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
1,373
Trophies
0
XP
1,363
Country
Brazil
While I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, it does make me think about something. Who owns "fake news"? Propaganda is an idealogy's best friend. Those who speak against cults are probably in competition.
Thats the relation. Look closely at your hegemon.
 

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,488
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
9,995
Country
United States
This is the most potent lesson I am learning from this thread. End justifies the means for some people. For those people, more words are needed to explain simple truths. Otherwise their ideology risks being undone.
I did explicitly state that I believe the ends do justify the means when it comes to expanding our rights, liberties, and freedoms, and I stick by that. The idea that progress is destined to happen over time no matter what is largely a neoliberal one, and it's total nonsense meant to keep the populace content no matter how blatant the failures of the system become. Authoritarianism comes from the top down, not the bottom up.

If not for so many people believing the same as I do, the French and American revolutions never would've occured. If not for the riots following George Floyd's murder, Chauvin never would've been held accountable at all. If not for the Stonewall riots, gay people would never have become an accepted part of society in any capacity. The history of progress is also a history of righteous violence. Does it need to be that way always? Hopefully not, but it's currently the language that those in power seem to understand best.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: Given enough monkeys hitting 1 and 0 randomly eventually the next call of duty could be pumped...