The Biden Presidency - 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

My main point here is simply that people are people. We don't have the right to relegate them to second-class status simply because they are religious, which is exactly what you do if you say their opinions have no place in the public square.

I don't think anyone is saying their opinions have no place in the public square. If you don't believe in abortion, forbid premarital sex, whatever it is, that's totally fine. The issue is when someone forces their beliefs on to others.

And religion plays a tiny role here anyway. Most people who are pro-life don't care about actual abortions and are not doing it for religious reasons (they ignore plenty of other sins). It's about control over women.

[larrymcg421]

The idea that a codified abortion law wouldn't have also been overturned by this very same Supreme Court is ludicrous. But of course, Dems will just attack each other instead of the GOP, further eroding any chance they have in the midterms.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think anyone is saying their opinions have no place in the public square. If you don't believe in abortion, forbid premarital sex, whatever it is, that's totally fine. The issue is when someone forces their beliefs on to others.

Someone is always forcing their beliefs on others. That's an inevitable part of what government is.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Most people who are pro-life don't care about actual abortions and are not doing it for religious reasons (they ignore plenty of other sins)

Being pro-life doesn't mean being pro-theocracy. It's not 'all sins should be made illegal, therefore abortion should be'. A very small amount of people want a theocracy. That is not where most pro-lifers are.

[RainMaker]

I'd say a pretty large amount of people want a theocracy.

Also, most pro-life folks don't care about reducing abortions, they care about having control over what women can and can't do.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Someone is always forcing their beliefs on others. That's an inevitable part of what government is.

Being pro-life doesn't mean being pro-theocracy. It's not 'all sins should be made illegal, therefore abortion should be'. A very small amount of people want a theocracy. That is not where most pro-lifers are.

What do you think the entire point of democracy is?

We've seen even more blatant suppression of the majority voice in favor of the whiny minority just because they feel so righteous in their crusade.
Gun control. Abortion. Freedom for "my" Religion. You name it. Is it about expanding rights, expanding opportunities, making sure that every voice is heard and counted? Because that's not what one side is preaching. What they are preaching is decidedly anti-democratic, repressive, stripping of rights except for a privileged class (whether that class is race, sex, religion, or financial) and what we're hearing from that group now is very much that the minority needs to do whatever is necessary to stay in power in order to save the country because the rest of the majority doesn't know any better and only seeks to ruin their life. They have made a convenient argument of rationalization that flies in the face of what democracy actually is, and is quite, quite undemocratic and harmful, and puts us on a quick path to an oppressive dictatorship.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd say a pretty large amount of people want a theocracy.

Also, most pro-life folks don't care about reducing abortions, they care about having control over what women can and can't do.

Isn't the history of the pro-life movement linked more to segregation than religion? Up until the late 70s life was considered to start at first breath.

[Brian Swartz]

I fully agree with you that modern American conservatism has become dangerously anti-democratic. I posted basically to that effect about 10 hours ago in this thread, and have said so many times previously on this forum.

In terms of being repressive vs expanding rights & opportunities? Lots to blame to share around there. I don't view either party as covering themselves in glory on that front.

The 'entire point of democracy', as you put it, is exactly why I've said what I said. It's why I oppose the anti-religious language that has been prominent in the last couple pages of this thread.

[PilotMan]

Religious theology has zero place in public policy. Z.E.R.O.

If you want something in public policy based around a religious idea, like don't kill people, then sell it as such, that's ok. But don't say, don't kill people because that's what religion says. That is wholly improper. Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start. Like, why would you ever run an adoption agency, where you used sexual orientation as a means of determining who could raise kids in a good environment and who couldn't? There's no logic there. That argument basically it's ok if this kids life worse in foster care, than with this particular family because they violate our moral standard. That sort of opinion should have no place in policy.

[miami_fan]

There are some groups that do behave this way to be sure. There are others who do not. A major point of emphasis within many denominations in the believer's accountability first and foremost to God, not the church, or the leader of that church, etc. There are all manner of religious groups and it's simply not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella like this.

Is there a point when the groups who do not behave that way express those differences against those that do behave that way? Or are they cool with whatever happens because well at least the group that does want to keep people "stupid and obedient and filling their coffers share their many of their values. If it is the latter then it makes sense that they are all grouped under the same umbrella, no? I don't think anyone is denying that there are distinctions between religious groups. I just wish those groups made it more clear what those distinctions are.

My main point here is simply that people are people. We don't have the right to relegate them to second-class status simply because they are religious, which is exactly what you do if you say their opinions have no place in the public square. People in general - not all of them, but in general - want what's best for society. They just disagree on what that is, and this is not a phenomenon isolated to the religious. There are political demagogues of all stripes who could care less about the facts for completely non-religious reasons. We are all biased due to our worldview, whether it's religious, atheist, agnostic, whatever it may be. Religious people don't have some corner market on being irrational - indeed some are religious precisely because their understanding of logic and science brought them to that point of belief.

I think this is where the frustrations lies. Are we grouping all religious people under one umbrella or not? I do not believe anyone is relegating anyone who is religious to second class status. I do not believe that their opinions have no place in the public square. I think people do not want to made to be second class citizens to a certain group's religious beliefs.

[GrantDawg]

So the Mississippi law that goes into effect the second Roe is overturned outlaws abortion except for in the case of rape and the life of the mother. For some strange and creepy reason they didn't include incest.

[Lathum]

Is it possible incest falls under the umbrella of rape?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Isn't the history of the pro-life movement linked more to segregation than religion? Up until the late 70s life was considered to start at first breath.

The very earliest days were about removing bodily autonomy and eliminating midwives (who were mostly black). It's when the AMA was created to limit who could decide what regarding pregnancies. In the past, it had been up to the woman as to what she wanted to do with her body.

Then came the 20th Century where white protestants were upset that their own people were getting abortions while others were not. They hated the fact that Catholics were opposed to abortion and contraceptives. Catholics were not deemed white (primarily from the countries they came from). Other minorities didn't have access to the type of health care that could provide it.

So early anti-abortion efforts were based around "replacement theory". If we let our pure aryan people have abortions, these other groups who are against it or don't have access to it will replace us. Hint of that in what Barrett writes.

The 80's and 90's saw a huge shift toward white supremacist groups. The anti-abortion movement had stalled and they wanted to turn it more violent. It also gave them a chance to blame the Jews. A lot of anti-abortion rhetoric targets Jewish doctors as being greedy killers of white babies.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Is it possible incest falls under the umbrella of rape?

It doesn't.

The exceptions really don't matter. It's incredibly hard to get one. You can't just say "I was raped". You need police reports and other documentation.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The very earliest days were about removing bodily autonomy and eliminating midwives (who were mostly black). It's when the AMA was created to limit who could decide what regarding pregnancies. In the past, it had been up to the woman as to what she wanted to do with her body.

Then came the 20th Century where white protestants were upset that their own people were getting abortions while others were not. They hated the fact that Catholics were opposed to abortion and contraceptives. Catholics were not deemed white (primarily from the countries they came from). Other minorities didn't have access to the type of health care that could provide it.

So early anti-abortion efforts were based around "replacement theory". If we let our pure aryan people have abortions, these other groups who are against it or don't have access to it will replace us. Hint of that in what Barrett writes.

The 80's and 90's saw a huge shift toward white supremacist groups. The anti-abortion movement had stalled and they wanted to turn it more violent. It also gave them a chance to blame the Jews. A lot of anti-abortion rhetoric targets Jewish doctors as being greedy killers of white babies.

I just remembered at some point reading about the GOP taking up the fight and pushing it more as a dem/gop issue as a response to Carter withholding federal money from schools that refused to desegregate. Up until that point it had solid support from both parties.

[stevew]

Aren’t people under a certain age incapable of giving consent basically.

[Atocep]

And now we have Marsha Blackburn wanting to only allow married couples to have access to birth control.

The GOP definitely has Griswold in their sights now.

My questions is if you want to clearly define life at conception how do you rationalize not starting child support payments, tax credits, ect at conception? Or how do you find any pregnant woman guilty of a crime?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Is there a point when the groups who do not behave that way express those differences against those that do behave that way? Or are they cool with whatever happens because well at least the group that does want to keep people "stupid and obedient and filling their coffers share their many of their values. If it is the latter then it makes sense that they are all grouped under the same umbrella, no?

Regardless of the case, no it doesn't make sense to group under the same umbrella. Stereotyping is not the way to go. But to answer the question, some do and some don't. Some are independent and don't see it as being their job to judge what other churches/religions are doing. That's a distraction from the main thing, which is their responsibility to their members and others in their immediate community. What makes this particularly amusing to me is that this sort of criticism comes from the same direction as those who say churches need to be apolitical or lose their tax-exempt status. I.e. you can't say that they need to stay out of politics and not be judgemental, and at the same time say they should be judging other churches that they have no authority over and who have different views or approaches to religious life.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I think this is where the frustrations lies. Are we grouping all religious people under one umbrella or not? I do not believe anyone is relegating anyone who is religious to second class status. I do not believe that their opinions have no place in the public square. I think people do not want to made to be second class citizens to a certain group's religious beliefs.

People absolutely are relegating the religious to second-class status. PilotMan explicitly did so in the post above yours, and previously. Others have implied it as well, including your post though this may not be intentional.

Regarding grouping religious people under one umbrella, what I'm saying is we should treat them like other groups and not single them out for special criticism which is exactly what is happening here. For example, take fans of differnt sports, or different political 'factions', i.e. liberal/independent/conservative, or whatever groups of people you may wish to define for purposes of identification and description.

** It's unfair to color all members of a group with the actions of a subset of that group. There are a decidedly not-small number of liberal religious people for example. There are rabid fans of certain sports that behave in appalling, shameful ways. There are people who can't get through most of the year without being depressed because there's no fantasy football. And there are others who are fine in the interim as they watch other sports or don't and just continue on with their life. Stereotyping disenfranchises the individual, it involves guilt by association, and it's fundamentally unfair.

** Equal treatment under the law, equal access to all facets of democracy, etc. must be the same for all members of a group. This is where the second-class citizen part comes in. Somebody's beliefs get imposed no matter what, as noted. When it's claimed, as overtly stated by PilotMan, that "Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start." you are explicitly saying that the securalist person's opinions are to take priority over the religious person's. That a religious person cannot have their most cherised and deeply held beliefs represented in government, but a non-religious person can. That's simply definitionally anti-democratic, and creates a classification of acceptable and unacceptable participation in the public square.

It is a contradiction of one person, one vote, or as stated further up, "making sure that every voice is heard and counted?". What it means is, making sure every voice that agrees with our suppositions is heard and counted. A person is not more oppressed - or in the case of a good law, less benefited - if a law comes from a religious basis than if it does not. It's the same logic, simply applied differently, that drove some conservatives to wrongly say for example that no Muslim mosque should be built near Ground Zero, or that Muslims should have to renounce Sharia Law before becoming citizens, or things of that nature. If we're going to stand on our soapbox and say we are pro-democracy, we need to actually be pro-democracy, including the expression of and enaction into law concepts we don't agree with if the majority elects representatives that pass laws to that effect. There are all manner of idiotic and illogical laws that get passed which have nothing to do with religion but with people just flat-out being wrong due to other biases. Singling out the religious for special cricitism is nothing other than an inherent anti-religion stance, and is antithetical to democracy.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** Equal treatment under the law, equal access to all facets of democracy, etc. must be the same for all members of a group. This is where the second-class citizen part comes in. Somebody's beliefs get imposed no matter what, as noted. When it's claimed, as overtly stated by PilotMan, that "Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start." you are explicitly saying that the securalist person's opinions are to take priority over the religious person's. That a religious person cannot have their most cherised and deeply held beliefs represented in government, but a non-religious person can. That's simply definitionally anti-democratic, and creates a classification of acceptable and unacceptable participation in the public square.

Your argument makes a supposition on position that I clearly stipulated. Your argument is simply wrong. Religion is not a basis for a classification of citizenry unless that religion is inherently a part of the governing process, meaning that any other religion becomes a secondary class within that government. We have separation of church and state for a reason. You want freedom of religion but the current arguments are for that there should only be freedom for Christianity, and that Christians are the ones calling for that. That is the imposition of prohibiting Muslim laws or keeping Mosques from being near ground zero, not a secular definition. Put the argument for your case where it belongs. The religious right is essentially calling for a "Christian Nation" they would gladly take a set up like Iran here in Christian format. As for my statement, it takes no rights, beliefs or representation away from any individual based on their individual beliefs. They are free to practice the religion they choose, however they are not allowed to define policy based on religious theology. For example, I want to get rid of expensive doctors and promote healing crystals as the new framework of public health. Your argument states that unless that can be acceptable and worked into the system, or at the very least, heard, and that anything short of that is anti-democratic and suppressing a voice is honestly bullshit. The repression of the crystal healing group of people creates unequal treatment. Bullshit. About 20 years ago Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis started refusing to pick up passengers at the airport and bars because alcohol was involved and they were breaking the laws of their religion if they carried them. It's a bullshit argument because religion has no place in public policy. The ability to work was defined by the job description, if you cannot do the job because of your beliefs, that is not the problem of your employer, the same as it is not the problem of your government. You should probably find a new line of work. But the city caved and carved out an agreement. I don't remember what it was exactly, but that sort of push from religion into policy is untenable. If someone wants to have their position on crystals as part of public policy, and perhaps at this moment in scientific history, we don't know enough about it, maybe we don't, maybe it should be studied more, maybe it's bullshit, but we have science and data for a reason. We don't need to go around trying not to hurt people's feelings and telling them they are a part of a repressed 2nd class of citizenry because their beliefs are simple bullshit. As is your argument. People who support a secular point of view honestly don't give a shit what you believe as far as religion goes. If you want to pray in public, go for it. If you want to build temples, go for it. Stay in your lane. Do your thing, live your life. If you want to put the beliefs of your religion into public practice and now state that some portion of it must now be part of public policy, like bowing to the east 5 times a day, you don't get to do that.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

...

Sweet Jesus (pun intended), use paragraphs.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Your argument makes a supposition on position that I clearly stipulated.

What supposition, stipulated where?

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You want freedom of religion but the current arguments are for that there should only be freedom for Christianity, and that Christians are the ones calling for that.

I'm against that as much as I am against the secularist view. I'm not making an argument in favor of what any specific group of people is currently proposing in America. I'm making an argument in favor of the idea that an inherently anti-religious approach is unfair and anti-democratic.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We don't need to go around trying not to hurt people's feelings and telling them they are a part of a repressed 2nd class of citizenry because their beliefs are simple bullshit.

It has nothing to do with hurting people's feelings. In a democracy, you don't get to decide in advance that somebody's beliefs are bullshit. The deciding factor is not some exterior assessment of their validity, but whether or not a majority can be convinced to support them. That's it, and that's all. If there's a litmus test outside of that, then the only question is where you draw the line, and the power will reside somewhere else besides the people. There must be some body or force outside of them to decide what will be considered bullshit and what won't, and there's certainly no good reason to say it applies to religious views and not non-religious views, as there's quite a bit of bullshit to be found in the latter.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

it takes no rights, beliefs or representation away from any individual based on their individual beliefs. They are free to practice the religion they choose, however they are not allowed to define policy based on religious theology.

This is the key part. It is a contradiction. If you say someone cannot define policy based on whatever their beliefs are, religious based or otherwhise, then you absolutely are taking rights and representation away from them. You are saying they have to keep their religion to themselves, but that restriction is only applied to the religious. The secularist is not bound to keep their worldview to themselves and not have it impact on public policy.

[Mota]

The abortion issue should be personal. If you or your religion do not approve of abortion, then don't get one. I wouldn't dare state that my beliefs or requirements should override someone else's.

I also don't know why when it comes to abortion, life is so sacred for right wingers, but they also believe that every American should carry a gun on them. If you use their gun logic, every woman in America should have a "day after" pill in their pocket JUST IN CASE they get raped.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Mota

The abortion issue should be personal. If you or your religion do not approve of abortion, then don't get one. I wouldn't dare state that my beliefs or requirements should override someone else's.

I also don't know why when it comes to abortion, life is so sacred for right wingers, but they also believe that every American should carry a gun on them. If you use their gun logic, every woman in America should have a "day after" pill in their pocket JUST IN CASE they get raped.

Yeah that doesn't make any sense at all when viewing it from a pro-life perspective.

The right believes people should carry guns to defend themselves against people who would do them harm, including rapists.

In case of rape pro-lifers believe the baby is an innocent party and thus the mother has no right to take their life.

And unless you are an anarchist, you probably have some belief/requirements that should be imposed upon others.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Mota

The abortion issue should be personal. If you or your religion do not approve of abortion, then don't get one. I wouldn't dare state that my beliefs or requirements should override someone else's.

I also don't know why when it comes to abortion, life is so sacred for right wingers, but they also believe that every American should carry a gun on them. If you use their gun logic, every woman in America should have a "day after" pill in their pocket JUST IN CASE they get raped.

Your argument only makes sense if you start from your moral perspective though. If you really can’t understand the pro-life argument try this, substitute birth for conception. Should a woman have the right to end her child’s life up to nine months after it was born? How about three months? Infanticide was regularly practiced until relatively recently, it’s not that huge a stretch but it seems utterly barbaric to us now. And if we decide that a civil society can’t allow that to happen, shouldn’t the government be the enforcement mechanism to prevent it?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mota

The abortion issue should be personal. If you or your religion do not approve of abortion, then don't get one. I wouldn't dare state that my beliefs or requirements should override someone else's.

I also don't know why when it comes to abortion, life is so sacred for right wingers, but they also believe that every American should carry a gun on them. If you use their gun logic, every woman in America should have a "day after" pill in their pocket JUST IN CASE they get raped.

Let us not forget capitol punishment either. I mean if someone really wants to die on this hill, pun untended, then for a hard core pro-lifer capitol punishment still equates to a life being taken.....

I know it is apples and oranges, but you can take this argument as far into ridiculous as you want to, such as, how do we know that forcing a woman to have a child in a drug addled, abusive, criminal environment, will not result in that child being nurtured into a killer, who will one day have to be put to death by the prison system...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah that doesn't make any sense at all when viewing it from a pro-life perspective.

The right believes people should carry guns to defend themselves against people who would do them harm, including rapists.

In case of rape pro-lifers believe the baby is an innocent party and thus the mother has no right to take their life.

And unless you are an anarchist, you probably have some belief/requirements that should be imposed upon others.

They don't care about the unborn baby or abortion. It's about control.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They don't care about the unborn baby or abortion. It's about control.

How many pro-lifers have you asked about their reasoning behind being pro-life?

And they told you that they just want control?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How many pro-lifers have you asked about their reasoning behind being pro-life?

And they told you that they just want control?

Absolutely that is what it is about. If it is about the baby and sanctity of life why isn't the party pro gun control, free childcare, longer maternity leave, paid family leave, more social programs for low income families, etc....?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How many pro-lifers have you asked about their reasoning behind being pro-life?

And they told you that they just want control?

You can go to their websites and read through what they want. It is not a big secret. Reducing abortions is not their goal.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by I.J. Reilly

Your argument only makes sense if you start from your moral perspective though.

This.

[PilotMan]

Except that the majority rule, or they are supposed to, and the majority are of the opinion that women should have the right to do certain things with their own bodies and to make decisions that have lifelong consequences. To deny them that option sentences them to a life of bondage, for which they may have personal reasons to avoid, or lack the complete ability to handle the responsibility or the financial means to do so. Or even darker, remove all conditions for which the parent might need to decide the fate of a wanted child, who will only be born to a life of pain, suffering, and ultimately death. Or even darker, remove any and all conditions for which the wanted pregnancy might need to be terminated in order to prevent severe injury or even death to the parent.

But yeah...just you know, it's all just infanticide, and that's bad. So that's all that should be contemplated.

And if it was about life, why try and remove the supports that these women are going to need to raise their kids? Because that's not sanctifying life then is it? It's just wishing them good luck in their new life! Hope you won't need any help, and are ready to work for a life and be a productive member of society on the terms of our choosing.

If you wanted a bunch of young men with no prospects for a future, no support, no hope, in an ever expanding poor underclass, to rise up, inspired by extremist rhetoric, this is how you get that.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If you wanted a bunch of young men with no prospects for a future, no support, no hope, in an ever expanding poor underclass, to rise up, inspired by extremist rhetoric, this is how you get that.

This is 100% on point and I can speak on this from experience, coaching, mentoring and trying to guide these young men, that we are in a constant tug o war with the streets to hold on to.

There should never be an issue with a victim of rape/incest, severe fetal anomaly, or health risk to the mother getting an abortion anywhere in this country.

And while not a fan of abortion as a method of birth control, it is still a right Women should have, because even legal, it is still a choice for the woman to make, based on her beliefs and it should be considered settled law. So if you are 100% opposed to it, just don't do it, and don't force your beliefs on everyone else.

But if you are going to take that right away, you better damn sure make it a point to help these kids that are going to be born into drug addled homes, abusive environments and poverty, with many more obstacles than most kids will have to face.

I see these kids season after season, struggling to stay on task, working full, time jobs to help feed their siblings, trying to keep their academics in order and trying to play Football so they are not left to the streets. These elites in their glass towers could give two shits about any of what happens after in many cases, outside of the fact that they will have more fodder for their prison system at some point down the road, not to mention the increased gun violence wrought by people with no hope for a future.

[larrymcg421]

Except that the majority rule, or they are supposed to

No.

Do you think rights should only be granted when the majority agrees with them?

I mean, I agree that this decision is trash and I agree that the majority has almost no power due to gerrymandering, unbalanced Senate, electoral college, and corporate financing of campaigns, but the simple idea that the majority are supposed to rule is just too simplistic to be correct.

I'll put it another way. This decision would be trash even if it was accepted by the majority.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Regardless of the case, no it doesn't make sense to group under the same umbrella. Stereotyping is not the way to go. But to answer the question, some do and some don't. Some are independent and don't see it as being their job to judge what other churches/religions are doing. That's a distraction from the main thing, which is their responsibility to their members and others in their immediate community. What makes this particularly amusing to me is that this sort of criticism comes from the same direction as those who say churches need to be apolitical or lose their tax-exempt status. I.e. you can't say that they need to stay out of politics and not be judgemental, and at the same time say they should be judging other churches that they have no authority over and who have different views or approaches to religious life.

You acknowledged the existence of both groups. You said that there are differences between the groups. I asked the difference between the two groups specifically since from the outside looking in they seem to have put themselves or allowed that other group to put them under the same umbrella on this issue. The umbrella being people who based on their religious beliefs believe that women (regardless of the woman's religious beliefs) should not have the right to choose. Again from the outside looking in, it seems like some of those under that umbrella have chosen to make their voices heard in the public square and some have not. Those that choose not to are at the very least apathetic to what umbrella they are placed under, no?

Regarding grouping religious people under one umbrella, what I'm saying is we should treat them like other groups and not single them out for special criticism which is exactly what is happening here. For example, take fans of differnt sports, or different political 'factions', i.e. liberal/independent/conservative, or whatever groups of people you may wish to define for purposes of identification and description.

I don't know if you have heard how we treat other groups especially when they attempt to force something through that only 19% of the country agrees with. Here is a the mission statement of a religious group who may or may not would be welcomed under the religion umbrella you speak of.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) is a broad-based, national, interfaith movement that brings the moral force of religion to protect and advance reproductive health, choice, rights and justice through education, prophetic witness, pastoral presence and advocacy.

I would not group this religious org with a religious org that want to ban abortion. I don't think either of them would want to be grouped together either. It has nothing to do with the religion for me.

** It's unfair to color all members of a group with the actions of a subset of that group. There are a decidedly not-small number of liberal religious people for example. There are rabid fans of certain sports that behave in appalling, shameful ways. There are people who can't get through most of the year without being depressed because there's no fantasy football. And there are others who are fine in the interim as they watch other sports or don't and just continue on with their life. Stereotyping disenfranchises the individual, it involves guilt by association, and it's fundamentally unfair.

Trust me, you don't need to tell me how unfair it is to color all members of a group with the actions of a subset of that group. So why are we putting laws on the books that place that restrictions on everyone's ability to choose in order to satisfy the beliefs of a few. Not everyone who wants the ability to choose will choose to have an abortion.

** Equal treatment under the law, equal access to all facets of democracy, etc. must be the same for all members of a group. This is where the second-class citizen part comes in. Somebody's beliefs get imposed no matter what, as noted. When it's claimed, as overtly stated by PilotMan, that "Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start." you are explicitly saying that the securalist person's opinions are to take priority over the religious person's. That a religious person cannot have their most cherised and deeply held beliefs represented in government, but a non-religious person can. That's simply definitionally anti-democratic, and creates a classification of acceptable and unacceptable participation in the public square.

It is a contradiction of one person, one vote, or as stated further up, "making sure that every voice is heard and counted?". What it means is, making sure every voice that agrees with our suppositions is heard and counted. A person is not more oppressed - or in the case of a good law, less benefited - if a law comes from a religious basis than if it does not. It's the same logic, simply applied differently, that drove some conservatives to wrongly say for example that no Muslim mosque should be built near Ground Zero, or that Muslims should have to renounce Sharia Law before becoming citizens, or things of that nature. If we're going to stand on our soapbox and say we are pro-democracy, we need to actually be pro-democracy, including the expression of and enaction into law concepts we don't agree with if the majority elects representatives that pass laws to that effect. There are all manner of idiotic and illogical laws that get passed which have nothing to do with religion but with people just flat-out being wrong due to other biases. Singling out the religious for special cricitism is nothing other than an inherent anti-religion stance, and is antithetical to democracy.

I...I mean... given all of our history and our present with voting laws and voter suppression... I don't even know where to start with this one. Let's start at the beginning. I agree with your first sentence 100%. Of course we still have not reached that goal and we trying our damnedest to make sure we move further away from it. but I agree with the goal nonetheless. I don't agree that a secularist's opinion is to take priority over a religious person's opinion. But I also don't agree with one religious person's opinion taking priority over a secular person's differing opinion, a religious person of the same faith's differing opinion or a religious person of a different faith's differing opinion. I think we can all acknowledge that one particular set of religious beliefs have been given more priority than all others in the past. It seems like that is the case once again. I am not sure how democratic it is for that to continue. I mean that mosque still has not been built near Ground Zero.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This is 100% on point and I can speak on this from experience, coaching, mentoring and trying to guide these young men, that we are in a constant tug o war with the streets to hold on to.

There should never be an issue with a victim of rape/incest, severe fetal anomaly, or health risk to the mother getting an abortion anywhere in this country.

And while not a fan of abortion as a method of birth control, it is still a right Women should have, because even legal, it is still a choice for the woman to make, based on her beliefs and it should be considered settled law. So if you are 100% opposed to it, just don't do it, and don't force your beliefs on everyone else.

But if you are going to take that right away, you better damn sure make it a point to help these kids that are going to be born into drug addled homes, abusive environments and poverty, with many more obstacles than most kids will have to face.

I see these kids season after season, struggling to stay on task, working full, time jobs to help feed their siblings, trying to keep their academics in order and trying to play Football so they are not left to the streets. These elites in their glass towers could give two shits about any of what happens after in many cases, outside of the fact that they will have more fodder for their prison system at some point down the road, not to mention the increased gun violence wrought by people with no hope for a future.

Thanks for what you do, and well said.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They don't care about the unborn baby or abortion. It's about control.

A good portion of it is probably also "well if I have to adhere to these shitty rules, then everybody else should too!"

Or, "how come SHE gets to get away with stuff and I can't?" specifically from the women's perspective.

(For the men yeah, absolutely control.)

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If you wanted a bunch of young men with no prospects for a future, no support, no hope, in an ever expanding poor underclass, to rise up, inspired by extremist rhetoric, this is how you get that.

I'll quote and add that the above are the exact conditions that are found in young terrorists when they research ISIS, Al Qaeda, and it does translate to the US in the form of gangs and white supremacy, etc. It fills a need that isn't currently being met in their lives and gives them a reason to exist.

[JPhillips]

Susan Collins is a parody version of Susan Collins.

Susan Collins calls the cops to investigate “defacement of public property” after someone wrote a message in chalk on the sidewalk near her home asking her to codify Roe

[Ksyrup]

Democrats are so stupid. Schumer's out there saying they want to put every Senator's vote on record on abortion for the people to see and that he thinks they will suffer electorally because of it. But that's not the way elections work. Yes, the majority of Americans don't want to see Roe overturned, but the system is set up for GOP to make gains despite that fact. Tying this vote to Democrat election success, when it is going to fail, just makes the GOP messaging on abortion that much easier. "The court overturned Roe, we voted no for legislation, and the American people voted for a red wave 6 months later."

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can go to their websites and read through what they want. It is not a big secret. Reducing abortions is not their goal.

I have a mom who is a one-issue pro-life voter. I've heard many a conversation between her and her friends. Eliminating abortions is indeed their goal.

I'll give you they want to "control" women by preventing them from killing their babies.

[Ksyrup]

New Economist/YouGov poll shows fewer women than men and fewer liberals than conservatives will definitely vote in 2022 midterms. Nothing says outrage like ... complacency.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

from the outside looking in, it seems like some of those under that umbrella have chosen to make their voices heard in the public square and some have not. Those that choose not to are at the very least apathetic to what umbrella they are placed under, no?

You lost me with the first part of this paragraph a bit, I may be losing the thread of what you were trying to say to a degree. On this though, to my mind the issue isn't whether or not these groups are apathetic. It's not on them to combat unjustified supposition. It's on people from the outside to not make such suppositions. To use an extreme example, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that any church or religious group that hasn't specifically condemned the rhetoric of Westboro Baptist Church agrees with what they say. Each organization should be given the basic respect of being evaluated on their own merits. Religious groups in America are very diverse and defy easy categorization, there are trends and clumps one can evaluate and so on, but it's far from homogenous. Much like how I have no reasonable place to assume a specific poster on this board disagrees or agrees with something they haven't chosen to comment on.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I think we can all acknowledge that one particular set of religious beliefs have been given more priority than all others in the past. It seems like that is the case once again. I am not sure how democratic it is for that to continue. I mean that mosque still has not been built near Ground Zero.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

why are we putting laws on the books that place that restrictions on everyone's ability to choose in order to satisfy the beliefs of a few. Not everyone who wants the ability to choose will choose to have an abortion.

With these statements we are moving from process to results. It appears we are in agreement on the matter of religion vis a vis representation, and I will celebrate that common ground without qualification. I also want to note that as regards voter suppression - nobody here is arguing in favor of that. Certainly I'm not. I'm not ignoring that part of the issue, but afaik we're all on the same side there. It's wrong, it's not democratic, I want it to stop, the board as a whole does, etc.

The first thing I would say is that democracy is about the process, not the results. I.e. who has a voice, and to what degree, not what was the outcome of those voices. In terms of laws being passed, our representative democracy is less democratic than a direct democracy would be, which leads on some occasions to laws being passed that only a minority favors. We're voting one for our legislators on a wide range of issues batched together in one election, instead of voting for them each individually ourselves. We surrender some democracy in the process but gain practicality. As Rainmaker is fond of pointing out, and often accurately, there are many issues that a majority of Americans favor, but they're not willing to change who they vote for to make it happen. In other words, they don't care enough about them to sacrifice issues they consider as higher priorities.

There is of course a lot more in our system that isn't democratic. If we wanted a government was a representative democracy and *only* that, we would abolish the Constitution in it's entirety, eliminate the Supreme Court, greatly limit the power of the executive so that the President is little more than a figurehead, and eliminate the Senate. We'd probably also want to reform the House of Representatives while we are it, making either sweeping changes to districting or just flat-out eliminating it entirely and going with random lottery selection system in terms of which citizens vote for which position in the House. This would leave a lot less protection for minorities of course than we presently have, but it would be a more democratic way of doing things.

In terms of restricting choice, I think aside from the question of how many people care about that compared to how much they care about other issues - the next couple of elections will as other posters have noted tell us a lot about where they are on that - there is the fact that the % of people in favor or against varies with time and also varies based on what state you're talking about. All of those things will settle out and we'll see where people really are.

It's also not at all the way that some people view the abortion question. I'm personally on the side that cannot express within the bounds of my English vocabulary the utter disgust that hearing the issue framed in those terms produces in my mind. In general I don't debate it because I don't think there is much point, but I'll quote someone on this board on the other, majority side of the issue:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

under the theory that life begins at conception, why wouldn't that be the result? I don't feel that way, but if someone truly believes that, then how could you argue that a woman seeking to end a life shouldn't be charged for it? How can you say it is life, but it isn't murder?

If you believe as I do that life does begin at conception, and that personhood theory is simply a toothless rationalization, there's only one place you can come down. The too often-ignored party in this issue is not given a choice. I know a majority of Americans don't see it that way, which means all other things being equal the democratic outcome would be legal abortion. And if the people of the Republic care enough about it, that's what will happen.

FWIW, I'm witholding judgement till the final opinion comes out but based on what I know of the Alito draft I would term it a bad ruling, for similar reasons to why Roe v. Wade was bad initially. But it is also one that can be overcome. Congress can, and if enough people care they will, pass a law authorizing abortion rights throughout the land.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I have a mom who is a one-issue pro-life voter. I've heard many a conversation between her and her friends. Eliminating abortions is indeed their goal.

I'll give you they want to "control" women by preventing them from killing their babies.

Why do all those groups want to ban certain contraceptives? Why do they oppose giving out contraceptives to teenagers? Why do they oppose equal access to health care? Why do they reject funding for prenatal care? Why do they want to eliminate sex education in school?

Ask her if she supports those causes. They all decrease the number of abortions in this country. Can't really say you oppose abortion while supporting policies that increase them.

[Flasch186]

They don’t increase them

They want them to have the baby and put it in an orphanage wherein they graduate out eventually to become cheap labor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Growing up in an orphanage is generally preferred if murder is the alternative.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do all those groups want to ban certain contraceptives? Why do they oppose giving out contraceptives to teenagers? Why do they oppose equal access to health care? Why do they reject funding for prenatal care? Why do they want to eliminate sex education in school?

Ask her if she supports those causes. They all decrease the number of abortions in this country. Can't really say you oppose abortion while supporting policies that increase them.

I know for a fact she doesn't want to eliminate sex education in school. Keep in mind that pro-lifers are not a hive-mind as you're brushing them as.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Growing up in an orphanage is generally preferred if murder is the alternative.

Neither is preferred, which is why sex education, health care, and contraceptives are so important. They reduce unwanted pregnancies.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I know for a fact she doesn't want to eliminate sex education in school. Keep in mind that pro-lifers are not a hive-mind as you're brushing them as.

How many pro-life groups do you know of that advocate for access to free contraceptives? How many are pushing for sex education in schools or free health care?

[Flasch186]

Well scientifically it’s not murder before a certain time period so I think we should stop debating because it’ll be a waste of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well scientifically it’s not murder before a certain time period so I think we should stop debating because it’ll be a waste of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the time period?

Also, is sperm alive? They swim.

[GrantDawg]

Evey sperm is sacred...
Every sperm is good...

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk