• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prediction: Roe v wade will be overturned

I support a Christian view which is a basis for a lot of our constitution and the beliefs of the people who wrote and made it our law.
Yeah well the Lord of tbe rings is far better and based on just as much reality.

Yet neither are a good basis for government...
 
If it is it will be tbe end of the Republican party.

A very large portion of their ranks only vote on that one issue...
 
Yeah well the Lord of tbe rings is far better and based on just as much reality.

Yet neither are a good basis for government...
The teachings of Jesus are clearly not a good way to treat each other. I guess the Stalin or Hitler ideology is clearly better.
 
And yet Founding Fathers went to a lot of trouble to say we AREN'T a Christian nation. Read your Constitution
I have read the constitution. We were a Christian nation at the time. Our constitution was written by people who believed in Christianity and based a lot of our laws on Christian values and beliefs.
 
The teachings of Jesus are clearly not a good way to treat each other. I guess the Stalin or Hitler ideology is clearly better.
You show me where the Republican platform in anyway involves the teachings of Jesus...
 
You show me where the Republican platform in anyway involves the teachings of Jesus...
What planet have you been on?

If 1976 was the Year of the Evangelical, then 1980 was the Year of the Evangelical Right. By that time, surprisingly few commentators noticed the difference. What would become known as the “Christian Right,” or the “religious right,” had largely coalesced by the end of the 1970s, but the presidential race of 1980 thrust it further into the national spotlight. That year witnessed a conclusive pivot in modern evangelical politics—a pivot, indeed, in the image of American evangelicalism as a whole. All three candidates in 1980—Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, and independent Republican John Anderson—described themselves as born-again Christians
 
The teachings of Jesus are clearly not a good way to treat each other. I guess the Stalin or Hitler ideology is clearly better.
You show me where the Republican platform in anyway involves the teachings of jesu
What planet have you been on?

If 1976 was the Year of the Evangelical, then 1980 was the Year of the Evangelical Right. By that time, surprisingly few commentators noticed the difference. What would become known as the “Christian Right,” or the “religious right,” had largely coalesced by the end of the 1970s, but the presidential race of 1980 thrust it further into the national spotlight. That year witnessed a conclusive pivot in modern evangelical politics—a pivot, indeed, in the image of American evangelicalism as a whole. All three candidates in 1980—Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, and independent Republican John Anderson—described themselves as born-again Christians
Jimmy and Tammy Fay???
Oral Roberts "I need a million dollars or God is going to call me home"
He was told that by a 900 foot floating in the air Jesus...
You do love your con artists don't you???
 
I support a Christian view which is a basis for a lot of our constitution and the beliefs of the people who wrote and made it our law.

It is not the view of most Protestants or those of the Jewish faith.
We believe in Religious Liberty.


Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.



https://rcrc.org/the-moral-case/
 
Last edited:
I have read the constitution. We were a Christian nation at the time. Our constitution was written by people who believed in Christianity and based a lot of our laws on Christian values and beliefs.

Did you also read the Bill of Rights ?

There are many different Christian Religions and there many different tenets among the Christian religions.

I find it really interesting that there were letters written between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson because the Baptists were concerned about the separation of church and state. Those letters led to the Bill of Rights. It’s from the Bill of Rights we have a Right to privacy.

The right to privacy between a woman and her doctor is the basis that Roe vs Wade was decided.
 
Last edited:
I support a Christian view which is a basis for a lot of our constitution and the beliefs of the people who wrote and made it our law.

There is nowhere in the Bible forbidding a woman from terminating her pregnancy.
 
Didn't you say you taught the Constitution as a teacher?

Then you should know that not all Const rights have to be enumerated in the Const...see the 9th Amendment.

For example, where is your right to 'have' children? Where is your right to have consensual sex?
You don't have a "Right" to those things. Rights are negative in nature.
 
You show me where the Republican platform in anyway involves the teachings of jesu

Jimmy and Tammy Fay???
Oral Roberts "I need a million dollars or God is going to call me home"
He was told that by a 900 foot floating in the air Jesus...
You do love your con artists don't you???
I just gave you 1 of thousands if not tens of thousands of examples. What is your deal with Oral Roberts? Are you all right.
 
Did you also read the Bill of Rights ?

There are many different Christian Religions and there many different tenets among the Christian religions.

I find it really interesting that there were letters written between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson because the Baptists were concerned about the separation of church and state. Those letters led to the Bill of Rights. It’s from the Bill of Rights we have a Right to privacy.

The right to privacy between a woman and her doctor is the basis that Roe vs Wade was decided.
So as long as my doctor and I conspire to kill our child it is OK Oops I wanted a girl get rid of this boy and we will try again.
 
I just gave you 1 of thousands if not tens of thousands of examples. What is your deal with Oral Roberts? Are you all right.
Same as Trump I don't like con artists...

Still waiting on how tbe Republican agenda follows tbe teachings of Christ.

A bunch of brainwashed religious zealots voting for them is not a policy...
 
So as long as my doctor and I conspire to kill our child it is OK Oops I wanted a girl get rid of this boy and we will try again.
Not a child. The unborn. That you CHOOSE to make a distinction, esp. about something that has a deleterious, even deadly effect, on a woman you dont even know, is disturbing. You dont know her needs, her health, her responsibilities, her obligations, her living conditions.

And yet, it seems you believe you or the govt have the right to demand that she take a much greater risk? Is this true? If so, why? (We're talking about America for goodness sake.)

Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion."​

 
Is the right to free speech negative in nature? Please explain. I think that's an angle I dont understand.

Yes, our right to speech is negative in nature - within boundaries (defamation, classified information, etc), the government is forbidden from interfering with our speech, either by restricting our expression, or by compelling it.

If I had a positive right to consensual sex, for example, that would mean the government was required to ensure I recieved consensual sex. The problem there quickly becomes - what if no one wants to have sex with me? Should the government enable me to recieve what, after all, is my right, by taking away the rights of someone else? Claims of Positive Rights quickly run up against the problem that, to be met, they require government force to take from others.

Instead, liberty regarding sexual expression is negative in nature, within boundaries. Matt Gaetz can't defend his actions with a minor by pointing to a positive right to recieved consensual sex; because there is no such thing, we've criminalized sexual interaction by age, as well as by relationship (prostitution), as well as by location (crossing state lines, no strip clubs next to schools, etc.)
 
Yes, our right to speech is negative in nature - within boundaries (defamation, classified information, etc), the government is forbidden from interfering with our speech, either by restricting our expression, or by compelling it.

If I had a positive right to consensual sex, for example, that would mean the government was required to ensure I recieved consensual sex. The problem there quickly becomes - what if no one wants to have sex with me? Should the government enable me to recieved what, after all, is my right, by taking away the rights of someone else?

Instead, liberty regarding sexual expression is negative in nature, within boundaries. Matt Gaetz can't defend his actions with a minor by pointing to a positive right to recieved consensual sex; because there is no such thing, we've criminalized sexual interaction by age, as well as by relationship (prostitution), as well as by location (crossing state lines, no strip clubs next to schools, etc.)
OK. So then why did you correct my post specifically for abortion? I never wrote that the govt must provide abortions.
 
So until I was physically born I was not alive. So I instantly become alive at birth. WOW!

I've killed thousands of animals.

What did they have in common?

When they were breathing they were alive, when they stopped they weren't...

As a Christian you must believe t that e everything is God's will, therefore God ordered any and all abortions...

Just look at it as another one of his miscarriages, which are far more common than abortions...
 
OK. So then why did you correct my post specifically for abortion? I never wrote that the govt must provide abortions.
You stated:

£Then you should know that not all Const rights have to be enumerated in the Const...see the 9th Amendment.

For example, where is your right to 'have' children? Where is your right to have consensual sex?

We don't, in fact, have a right to those things. :)
 
Several states passed similar laws in 2018/2019 and not one of them has been enacted. All were challenged, those that have been adjudicated have all been overturned as unconstitutional.

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortion illegal...it sends it back to the states. Many states will maintain its legality and it's not possible under the Const to criminalize having an abortion. The most the other states can do is make it illegal to provide abortions and some almost do already...some very large states have only 1 facility. Even now, women go to a closer state's facility.

It does place what, thus far, SCOTUS has determined, place an undue burden on women in many cases (laws on requiring Dr's privileges at nearby hospitals, forcing viewing sonograms on women, etc)...there isnt that much else to challenge. Unless you have some things in mind?

But overturning Roe still does open the door, to some extent, for expansion of the rest of their agenda:
CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF A WOMAN'S LIFE.

Once they overturn Roe it is not much of a leap to criminalizing other things, first at state level, then as cases get heard by SCOTUS, quite possibly at a higher and more national level. They can try to criminalize certain types of contraception, first the Morning After Pill, then they can criminalize birth control pills, then they can criminalize premarital sex, then extramarital sex.
They start by passing laws that say doctors and pharmacists have the right to refuse to sell birth control "based on deeply held beliefs" and then they outlaw them altogether.

Again...first at state level, but I guarantee you it will not end at state level.
Margaret Atwood is correct.

sxsw-handmaids-tale.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom