• 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!

The Latest Crusade to Place Religion Over the Rest of Civil Society

How so? There is no legal definition of life before birth. It comes from religious teachings.
From a legal standpoint, "life" before birth is not really the issue. It's when that "life" is considered a legal person. The unborn are not considered legal persons with rights.
 
RvW was not decided on religion...it was correctly decided on bad law.

If advocates of butchering children were sincere they would have pushed for and passed an amendment.
RvW was not decided on bad law. It was correctly decided in accord with the 1st Amendment by an extensive review of the unborn as seen from numerous western philosophical and religious views across history and other world religious view as well as several perspectives within biological sciences.

That you insist on calling the unborn "children" and implying without warrant that the mere termination of a pregnancy "butchers" them is itself insincere, so who are you to criticize pro-choice members of Congress? Frankly, many millions of Americans, included constitutional law professors who had SC justices as students, did not think RvW was very bad, only that it would have been better had it been tweaked in minor ways.
 
RvW was not decided on bad law. It was correctly decided in accord with the 1st Amendment by an extensive review of the unborn as seen from numerous western philosophical and religious views across history and other world religious view as well as several perspectives within biological sciences.

That you insist on calling the unborn "children" and implying without warrant that the mere termination of a pregnancy "butchers" them is itself insincere, so who are you to criticize pro-choice members of Congress? Frankly, many millions of Americans, included constitutional law professors who had SC justices as students, did not think RvW was very bad, only that it would have been better had it been tweaked in minor ways.
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.
 
RvW is one of the most egregious examples of Judicial fiat in the United States. A truly incoherent ruling that prescribes abortion as a eugenic solution for all of societies ills and enshrined it as a right without a single law being passed or executive order. The idea that the Supreme Court should have the power to just blanket legalize something so controversial is proven batshit by the fact that all it took was another arbitrary Judicial decision to pull the rug out under 50 years of legal precedent.

Judges have infinitely too much power in the modern united states. But no one on the left wanted to address this because at the time Judicial Branch power creep started Judges were stacked in their favor and were the only way to pass incredibly unpopular policy like Roe v Wade. Well now the Judicial Branch is stacked the other way and everyone who was soyjacking over RBJ has overnight realized this is a bad way to actually run things. But theres no undoing 50 years of rationalizing Judicial over-reach for partisan reasons just because the wrong partisans are in charge now, and the people that actually tried to stop this as it was happening arent going to take a principled stand against Judicial power just because it suddenly fell in their laps. They want payback for half a century of unpopular policies being shoved down their throats.

I just cant get over the fact that the people who supported Judicial over-reach literally did not once think the thought "what if a Judge I dont like is in charge next."
This is 100% BS. Nothing in RvW is "incoherent." It does not prescribe "abortion as a eugenic solution," etc.

There are two ways in which RvW judicially overreached, and neither has anything to do with your view. First, it claimed that "the state" had "an interest" in the unborn without explaining how or why it did and why, given the fact that this interest could conflict with a woman's basic personal rights to life and liberty, we should favor it.

Second, though there was nothing wrong with selecting "fetal viability" as the point at which state interest could be strong enough to override such rights, the decision offered the elaborate trimester system, which was too detailed not to be, basically, legislative. But the excuse for it is that the SC knew there were going to be lots of states appealing up to the SC on detail after detail re abortion, so it used its claims for the second and third trimesters to issue guidance in advance to prevent some of that.

But the idea that a woman is not enough of a person, or that an embryo/fetus is "a life," so that the woman doesn't even have sufficient right to liberty to get medical treatment to restore her immune system to its normal healthy functioning is ridiculous.
 
:ROFLMAO:

That's the irony in all this. The decision made actually cited incorrect law...yet your idiotic claim is that it was solely due to religion.

But you did say something honest for once. The truth...facts...have no effect on me.
If so, then provide the link or an explanation of the incorrect law citation instead of insulting.
 
The SCOTUS tried to create one in it’s RvW and Casey decisions via state law making authorizations.
RvW made a point of the lack of universally agreed upon definitions of life before birth in the biological sciences or scientific philosophies, which have varied definitions based on their perspectives, world philosophies and religions, Biblical religions, the Judao-Christian tradition, and Christianity's main religious sects in America. SCOTUS referenced the diversity and so didn't offer a definition of life.

RvW merely tells people they don't have the right to force one definition of life down all throats because they have to take others' views into consideration.

However, RvW is clear on the fact that the Constitution does not accord the status of "person" to the unborn. In fact, in Article 1, Section 2, it logically implies that both men and women are persons (because of the Census inclusion of debt servants, as both M and F debt servants existed). And the count by "actual enumeration," not projected count, couldn't apply to the unborn (the 4th A guarantees security of from unreasonable searches and seizures for persons and hence for women as well as men).

It's important that, in RvW, all nine SC justices agreed on this exclusion of the unborn from person status, and not just the ones agreeing on the majority opinion. Knowing that makes sense of Alito's calling the unborn "a life" or "a potential life," etc., and never a person in Dobbs and of the SC refusing to take the case from RI in which a Catholic organization and two pregnant women appealed for the SC to say the women's unborn were "persons" or not. Even the conservative majority would want to mess with this, because the unborn clearly have never been Constitutional persons.
 
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.
First, the Constitution doesn't evaluate life as more important than liberty - that is a Roman Catholic value, not an American one (and FYI not Jesus Christ's teaching, either). Ours is a constitution of a nation, and if the Constitution is not worth protecting to the extent of laying down one's life for it, its raison d'etre is destroyed.

Second, abortion isn't slaughter, it isn't butchery, and the unborn aren't babies. Hey, I'd defend your right to say they are even though that is literally inaccurate, but I wouldn't lay my life down for it because it isn't the truth, so it wouldn't lift me back up.
 
RvW was not decided on religion...it was correctly decided on bad law.

If advocates of butchering children were sincere they would have pushed for and passed an amendment.
The inherent right to body autonomy of the 4th amendment is not bad law. Its the basis of personal freedom. If we don't control our bodies then every other right is irrelevant.
 
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.
You are entitled to your religious beliefs and opinion. You are not entitled to make your religious beliefs into law ........... unless you have circumvented the Constitution and endowed the Supreme Court of of the United States with your religious conservative minions who agreed to your command to deny women the right to make a private decisions about giving birth or not. Religious conservatives got Dobbs by the appointment of 5 ideological religious conservatives. The misunderstanding of history and the Constitution, the individual dishonesty and inability to conjure up even a minimal amount of intellectual processing will eventually embarrass this court and the raving idiots that supported the intellectual midgets that they elected to Congress.
 
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.
What is the "value" of life exactly? Can you quantify it?
 
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.
You know, nobody is making religious laws against you, taking away your basic Constitutional rights to attend your greedy little evangelical prosperity churches that devalue the lives of the poor or your membership in dishonest churches that devalue the lives of women, their children and their families. Nobody has made any law that interfered with your Constitutional right to preach money grubbing, discrimination and hate.

It would be interesting to know why these same churches, the ones enjoying full Constitutional protections, feel such a strong need to deny, in the name of Jesus, the Constitutional protections of so many other people.
 
To some…it’s everything. To you…it’s nothing.
Meaningless platitude, subjective, and a Strawman argument. You claim life has "value." What is this "value?"
 
To some…it’s everything. To you…it’s nothing.
It is perfectly possible to determine the civil value of a life. Governments, institutions, organizations do it every day when they build roads, sewage plants, high rise buildings, make budgets, establish programs, run hospitals and establish immigration laws etc. It is impossible to determine the religious value of life for the church must cherish every life or there is no point in church. This is why there is separation of church and state.


The Church cannot do what the government must do. Nor can the government do what the church is supposed to do. Yet both are essential organizations and society needs both.

Chaos and rebellion begin when churches act like civil governments. It never ends well for the church. Ask John Calvin. Governments create havoc when they decide they are appointed by God. Ask Louis the 14th ...... oh wait you can't he no longer has a head. Government has learned its lesson. Would that petty little evangelicals and conservatives Catholics would learn the same and not try to act like they are the government of the United States
 
Meaningless platitude, subjective, and a Strawman argument. You claim life has "value." What is this "value?"
Life has the value we assign it. You demean life to justify killing babies. You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
 
Life has the value we assign it. You demean life to justify killing babies. You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
The life of the mother far outweighs the possibly of life of the fetus, that is not yet a person.

I don't care about your input in the issue of abortion until men can get pregnant.
 
Life has the value we assign it.
That's completely subjective and therefore you cannot assign any actual or objective value to anyone else or declare anything has value to begin with.
You demean life to justify killing babies.
Specify where I have justified anything or why it's even necessary to begin with. No babies are killed either. So that's your own ignorance there!
You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
You're the one assigning some "value," not me. I merely asked what this so called value is. It seems you can't objectively explain or quantify it. It's clear you have no actual input beyond emotional based rhetoric.
 
Life has the value we assign it. You demean life to justify killing babies. You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
Life has the value to you that your church has assigned to it. You your church and your beliefs do not assign a value to life for me, only for you. You and your church are granted freedom by the Constitution to make this private decision and live by it. It doesn't give you a right to make that decision for me, or anyone else. You are right about one thing. Nobody need your input. It's a personal matter.
 
Life has the value we assign it. You demean life to justify killing babies. You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
Don't you find it interesting, Mack, that you and your church enjoy the Constitutional right to make private decisions about personal religious matters, like assigning the value of life, and simultaneously deny that same right to women of reproductive age?
 
That you continue to devalue life to justify slaughter and pretend you arent advocating for the butchering of 800,000 unborn babies says everything I will ever need to know about you.

The fact that you choose to ignore the science and push backward religious nonsense is an issue. How about the right stays out of private medical decisions and keeps their religion to themselves?
 
Life has the value we assign it. You demean life to justify killing babies. You answer your own question. You dont need my input on any of this.
Liberty has the value we assign it. You demean liberty to justify forcing women to continue pregnancies, and because there is no difference to you in the life of a wanted embryo, an embryo that came from rape, and an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy, you demean liberty to stop rape or save a woman's life. You answer your own question. You believe rape that has started has a right to go on and on until it forces a woman to go through a childbirth that will put her in a permanent coma. That's what you believe in.
 
Liberty has the value we assign it. You demean liberty to justify forcing women to continue pregnancies, and because there is no difference to you in the life of a wanted embryo, an embryo that came from rape, and an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy, you demean liberty to stop rape or save a woman's life. You answer your own question. You believe rape that has started has a right to go on and on until it forces a woman to go through a childbirth that will put her in a permanent coma. That's what you believe in.
I defy you to find a single time where I have ever suggested or endorsed a ban on abortion.

I find the act of slaughtering unborn babies for the crime of being inconvenient abhorrent and something that has contributed to our overall societal decline. I am also a realist. Abortions are going to happen. I have ALWAYS maintained the same position as Obama and others...that abortion be safe, legal, and rare.

Its the 'rare' part we have forgotten.
 
I defy you to find a single time where I have ever suggested or endorsed a ban on abortion.

I find the act of slaughtering unborn babies for the crime of being inconvenient abhorrent and something that has contributed to our overall societal decline. I am also a realist. Abortions are going to happen. I have ALWAYS maintained the same position as Obama and others...that abortion be safe, legal, and rare.

Its the 'rare' part we have forgotten.
How does abortion affect you, anyone else, or society in general? What are these so called "declines" attributed to abortion? Cite studies establishing a solid correlation!
Still waiting for you to explain or quantity the "value" of life.
 
How does abortion affect you, anyone else, or society in general? What are these so called "declines" attributed to abortion? Cite studies establishing a solid correlation!
Still waiting for you to explain or quantity the "value" of life.
You are under the mistaken impression that I care enough about you to continue your 'value of life' query. It was asked...answered...and I tend to not waste time with people that are mindlessly stuck in their own shit.

Face facts...you dont give the first **** about life...any life...and HAVE to devalue it to justify your support of the slaughter of the unborn.
 
Back
Top Bottom