• 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!

Well, separation of church and state was nice while it lasted

nvflash said:
As I said, grey areas.

So you would agree that after 16 weeks is the traditional moral moral cut off point where people agreed that it stopped being in the mother's hands a became an issue for society to also have a say, an issue of Law?
Click to expand...
No. You said that Jefferson would have been having a cow about me using him to promote/condone abortions, allowing them to be legal in the US.

No. Again, that was determined by the person and doctor of the time. Just don't tell anyone that they kicked, hide your belly, and no one knows whether it happened. But even quickening was just an arbitrary point and not the law everywhere.

Morals are subjective. There is no moral absolutes.
 
nvflash said:
Who is telling you any of those things?

What you are being told is we all, born and unborn, are endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to life.
Click to expand...
And that isn't true. Rights are made up by man, whatever we decide they are, hence the need for a Constitution that can be changed. You have no evidence to support your claims of any creator.

If rights were inalienable, then why could, can so many be killed for various "crimes"?
 
Jefferson’s creator God was not a god that was involved in human affairs or helpful in considering policy decisions.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
-Thomas Jefferson
 
Show me were Jefferson, the Constitution, or the Supreme Court has ever said " The Separation of Religion and State"?

I'll wait.
 
roguenuke said:
If rights were inalienable, then why could, can so many be killed for various "crimes"?
Click to expand...
Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?
 
NO, and many religions do not see zygotes or embryos as human babies either. And the fact is that people in most religions today in this country are not pro-life, but pro-birth. After the child is born they do not care what becomes of them, violating the very tenants of their own religions.
 
nvflash said:
Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?
Click to expand...
Not always. Many have been killed just simply for being there, or for beliefs of others, such as thinking that homosexuality is wrong, should be punished by death.

No one, no being has the right to survive off another without permission, put them in any danger.
 
TangoNoCash said:
The state clearly doesn’t consider them human. You can’t even use the carpool lane!
Click to expand...
I'd say more relevantly, the state does not consider them a person, and persons have rights. Simply being human has nothing to do with rights.
 
nvflash said:
So if I kill a one day old baby in his crib, that's murder right?

But if some doctor does a c section the day before and slaps the baby over the head with a club, that's a woman's right to chose?
Click to expand...
Are you married? Does your wife know that this is how you think women work?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
genuinely curious

Have people been saying that the embryos are members of some other species?
Click to expand...
You're not genuinely curious about this, why are you lying?
 
Wait, what?
 
nvflash said:
Show me were Jefferson, the Constitution, or the Supreme Court has ever said " The Separation of Religion and State"?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

It's cute that you think you made a point here.

See, what you are missing is that Jefferson foresaw people like you asking that very question. At the time, organized religion, such that they were trying to avoid, was the purview of the church. By separating the entity of the church from the state, it by design also would prevent thier dogma (religion) from being pressed upon society as well. Separating religion from the state would actually still inadvertently allow for the government to demand that everyone at least make thier way to a church, albeit it one of thier choosing.
 
Deuce said:
You're not genuinely curious about this, why are you lying?
Click to expand...

your telepathy helmet is busted af


I deduce from your snark that this is not something people have actually said.

The linked wiki piece starts off talking about how a human fetus is legally recognized as a member of the human species.

Since lawmakers felt the need to encode this seemingly obvious fact into law, it seems fair to wonder if there was some reason to do so.
ymmv
 
What you are saying is that religion should run the country as long as you do not call it a church. Sorry, but Jefferson wanted to keep all religion out of the running of the country as he knew from the experience in Europe at the time of what happened before and during the time when the constitution was written. It is why so many people left Europe to come to this country, to get away from the religions who not only were part of the government, but controlled the government and went after those of other religions. It is now happening in this country where we often hear this is a "Christian" country. And the idea that a judge should use his religion as the basis for his decisions, violates everything that this country stands for. Good example is that the Jewish religion does not consider a fetus a living person until they take their first breathe outside the womb. So, should they be able to have an abortion right up to the time of birth as that is their religious right to do so?
 
There is clearly a symbiotic relationship between Christian nationalists and Trump. The former is happy to overlook Trump's personal and professional immorality if it means an opportunity to impose their faith on others via the power of government at a time when persuasion hasn't yielded enough converts. Donald, in turn, is happy to play the "little wine and little cracker" game with these sorts if it means a return to power and grifting.
 
You have no moral absolutes.

Doesn't mean the rest of us can't vote to impose them on you, either way, they are the laws, opinions, and rulings of man. When God wants us to know his he will make that clear to us himself. Until then we are bound by the first.

That's the way liberty and democracy go, you have your opinions on what is moral and what should or should not be legal and we have ours. If that comes from our religion or not we are free to vote to impose those laws on you, and you are free to try and change them.

Freedom of speech and religion allows us to proclaim the laws came from God, but because you can still change them, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans as long as we fallowed the proper procedures set forth in the other laws to make a law.
 
Nope, Jefferson had no issue with religion, it was church he had issue with.

He had issue with government that proclaimed something to be law biased on church doctrine because that did turely end all debate, the law could henceforth not be changed or challenged because it was "The Word of God" handed down through a man or group of men whatever their reason.

In this case there is still recourse in law to appeal or vacate this ruling, it can be changed.
 
There are no moral absolutes. Morals rely on personal or shared values, which are subjective.

You can vote to impose them on anyone, but that is one reason we have a Constitution, that should be adhered to, which doesn't allow your beliefs to be used against me in our laws.

I've never said you couldn't claim anything comes from god. I'm saying that the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have meaning, including that you cannot impose your beliefs on us when it violates our religious views, even if they are really none. You cannot force others to adhere to what you believe your gods' rules are without violating the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution. That means you would need enough votes to overturn that or simply admit that the government is not abiding by the Constitution.
 
nvflash said:
Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there is no such thing as a baby in the womb. It is a fetus and calling it a baby is just your way of getting around that fact. Now a judge in Alabama is calling an embryo in a petri dish a baby and did so using in part of making his decision his religion. After getting rid of any kind of abortion and IVF, I will let you guess what the religious right will be coming for after that as they want to control all sexual activity in the nation. So you won't have to guess, birth control starting with IUD's.
 
Deuce said:
Are you married? Does your wife know that this is how you think women work?
Click to expand...
What my wife knows or does not know has no bearing on my judgment.

Likely why she is married to someone else now.
 
Now that is the very opposite of what everyone who has ever read the letter by Jefferson that contains the words a "wall" between church and state has ever determined. Earlier SCOTUS courts, even those ruled by the very conservative justices, never considered what you and present the present, so called conservative justices now on the court, would have ever allowed what is happening as our courts move government move toward religious control of both.
 
nvflash said:
What my wife knows or does not know has no bearing on my judgment.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Your judgment was already demonstrated here, I was asking for her sake.

That you think a woman one day before her due date would have a doctor perform a c-section only to kill the baby is... well, yikes. It demonstrates a deep-seated disgust of women.

Here in the real world, that is not a scenario that exists. It takes a sick mind to imagine that it does.
 
"Birth" control is abortion.

Contraception is not.

Anyway, I don't think all abortion should be illegal, or that it is all sin, but it is by definition murder in my faith.

However a lot of things are murder in my faith, and my God will judge me based on the circumstances of my actions. So I believe others too will be judged base on circumstances, and my opinions have no bearing on that. Their judgment takes place after they leave this world and my judgment ends with this world.

While I am in this world I will vote and make political decisions based a upon my faith, my moral judgments that come from that faith, and if those become laws or not I am free to do it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…