(06-25-2022, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, losing a clearly delineated and expressly stated constitutional right is unacceptable.  Interesting point for you to make, as the Dems have been doing their best to achieve exactly that for decades. 



Oh, so you were engaging in intentional hyperbole?  As stated earlier in this thread, there is no stated right to abortion in the Constitution.  Never mentioned, not once.  If your argument is that it falls under the 14th's right to privacy, then you'd have to agree that vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as well.  Regardless, coaching abortion as protected by the 14th amendment was a poor conclusion, as exemplified by yesterday's decision.



The results would be immaterial to the argument you're making.  One is a constitutional right, the other is not.


Oh, that's not why I labeled your argument disingenuous.  I labeled it as such because it's based on a deliberately false foundation; that abortion and gun rights are both covered by the Constitution. 

(06-25-2022, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "All men and women are CREATED EQUAL."

Men and women are CREATED when the sperm fertilizes the egg and the rest are just stages of development.

Quote:Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception?
 No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body. 

 Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured.

  According to Jewish law, is abortion health care? Yes, Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass psychological health as well as physical health. NCJW advocates for abortion access as an essential component of comprehensive, affordable, confidential, and equitable family planning, reproductive, sexual health, and maternal health services. 

 What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus. 

 Do abortion bans unduly favor one religious viewpoint over another? Yes, different religions believe that human life begins at different stages of development. Science can explain developmental timelines, but philosophic and religious viewpoints largely determine what exactly defines “life” or “personhood” for each individual. NCJW believes, as the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees, that no one religion should be enshrined in law or dictate public policy on any issue — including abortion. 

(06-26-2022, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is not what the Jewish faith says.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-gear-up-to-battle-abortion-bans-after-roe-overturned/

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf



So 17 states are violating the Jewish right to freedom of religion. (Actually mentioned in the constitution.)

Now what?

Or is everyone except the Christians wrong?

(06-26-2022, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: No what else isn't "clearly delineated" in the constitution?

Nine members on the SC
The filibuster
Qualified Immunity

Quote:One was made a right and then taken away.  That's the bottom line.

Quote:The "right" only existed at the whim of the religious and political leanings of the people telling you it was a right whether the word "Abortion" was in the constitution or not.

Quote:That's why Thomas wants to "fix" the decisions about gay marriage, sodomy laws and birth control.

You have a gay brother, you said, so prepare yourself.

(06-25-2022, 07:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I had to go back through your responses to see if I missed something after your accusation of transphobia, and it appears that I missed this post, which I honestly wish I had missed again.

Either you're trolling, ignorant of reproductive biology, or perhaps both. Even if your attempt was to be sarcastic or humorous, it failed in a rather disgusting manner. 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

(06-26-2022, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is not what the Jewish faith says.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-gear-up-to-battle-abortion-bans-after-roe-overturned/

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf



So 17 states are violating the Jewish right to freedom of religion. (Actually mentioned in the constitution.)

Now what?

Or is everyone except the Christians wrong?

(06-26-2022, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite correct.



Yes, one was incorrectly made a right.  I'll reiterate, I'd back and support any effort to codify Roe into law, but the previous SCOTUS ruling was based on some very shaky reasoning.



No, it existed only because a previous SCOTUS had said so.  Like the other 200 plus times before it the current SCOTUS reversed that previous ruling.


I certainly hope not, but even if this was the case it would, like abortion, fall back on the individual states.  All of this can be prevented by passing legislation codifying it into law, all of which I would support.  We've all, but especially the left, grown to accustomed to allowing the judicial branch to effectively write legislation.  This should be a very rare occurrence.

As for same sex marriage, it's a much harder constitutional sell to override that, IMO, a virtually impossible one.  Marriage has so many civil benefits that denying it to same sex couples violates the equal protection clause.  I will say that my uncle, the one who was a judge and federal prosecutor, agrees with you though.

(06-26-2022, 01:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Virtually impossible" just happened with Roe v Wade because the current SCOTUS based it on their own religious/political interepatation.

"Originalist" and all that...lol.

(06-26-2022, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Quiet part out loud.

TBF she claimed later she "misread" her speech.  I have not seen what she was supposed to say that she "misread" as "white".

Miller: President Trump… I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday pic.twitter.com/RqxmbT8jx5

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 26, 2022

(06-26-2022, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, I lifted it almost literally word for word from a reddit post by a transgender person responding to your exact same point.  I'll be sure to let them know they should be ashamed of themselves.

(06-26-2022, 01:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Virtually impossible" just happened with Roe v Wade because the current SCOTUS based it on their own religious/political interepatation.

"Originalist" and all that...lol.

(06-26-2022, 02:29 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Please explain your response without shifting the blame to something you saw and copied from Reddit. 

In the post you claimed was transphobic, the content addressed the realities of biological reproduction. At no point was gender mentioned. That's where you allowed your mind to go. It's telling that your first instinct was to pervert the topic in such a manner. 

I'm a homosexual and activist who's an avid supporter, defender and member of the LGBTQIAS2+ community. I have to deal with "veiled bigotry" by means of projection or misdirection all the time, so I'm sure you can understand why I find your explanation rather curious, to say the least.

(06-26-2022, 02:32 PM)basballguy Wrote: I find it hilarious that no matter how many times you’ve been reminded, you refuse to accept that religion had nothing to do with this.

(06-26-2022, 02:42 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Extremist religious belief is the foundation that undergirds Evangelical Republican ideology and their interpretation of the Constitution. They aren't shy about that fact and their ultimate goal is Christian Nationalism.

(06-26-2022, 02:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a hard time understanding how you could be confused.  I've been told, numerous times, that men can get pregnant, have periods, etc.

You stated, in relation to men vs. women that;

One isn't required to undergo physical, hormonal and emotional changes to bring forth life.

One isn't required to endure pain, severe discomfort or various medical issues to bring forth life.

One isn't required to potentially be forced against their will and autonomy to bring forth life. 

This is denying that there are, indeed, men who have to go through all of that.  If you have an issue with my response to your transphobia then kindly take it up with the transgendered community, I am merely echoing their statements on this subject.  Maybe you're not the ally you thought you were?

(06-26-2022, 02:56 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The fact you interpreted "one" as you did was problematic from the start, because it simply referred to biological reproduction and had nothing to do with gender. However, that's where your mind instinctually went.

Quote:Men can get pregnant if they still retain the biological means to do so.

Quote:The people affected by the push to eliminate abortion are the "ones' who possess the reproductive ability to become pregnant. Those people could be men or women in terms of gender. I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand.

Quote:Perhaps you don't want to understand and are more comfortable misconstruing the topic? 

(06-25-2022, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "All men and women are CREATED EQUAL."

Men and women are CREATED when the sperm fertilizes the egg and the rest are just stages of development.

(06-25-2022, 03:31 PM)Lucidus Wrote: One isn't required to undergo physical, hormonal and emotional changes to bring forth life.
One isn't required to endure pain, severe discomfort or various medical issues to bring forth life.
One isn't required to potentially be forced against their will and autonomy to bring forth life. 

(06-26-2022, 02:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's say you're 100% correct.  The decision reversing Roe was firmly grounded in the Constitution.  If you can make a valid argument that it was not, and was motivated solely by religious beliefs then, by all means, do so.  I have yet to see this from you, though.

(06-26-2022, 03:28 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I never asserted that it was "solely" because of religious belief. I've noticed that you have a habit of misrepresenting positions.

Quote:What I have asserted is that religious belief undergirds and motivates them to use and interpret the Constitution in ways that align with their religious ideology and serves enforce their version of morality on the population as a whole.

Quote:If you want proof of what the Evangelical Republican movement wants and by what means they think is most effective in achieving those desires, simply listen to their own words and statements. They view the constitution as God inspired, which is why they place so much emphasis on it.

Quote:Whether or not something is "grounded" in the constitution, it doesn't speak to the nefarious epistemological rationale that serves as the ammunition for weaponizing it to make their objectives a reality.