Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Then I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and examined it closely.

Then, of course you did what you should do, and rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

amirite?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7449/1...fa1a5cee_z.jpg

Alas Trumpettes and rightists in general don't care much about inconvenient facts.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

There doesn't seem to be any exemption for non-viable fetal anomalies that are detected at 20-24 weeks. They are rare...probably less than 50 women in Kentucky in a year, but they do happen.
Most women make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a hopeless pregnancy rather than carry to term.

Being forced to go through months of looking fully pregnant, knowing the fetus will 100% die (and could die at any moment), would be so cruel. I have been pregnant (healthy baby thankfully), and I know that lots of well-meaning strangers make comments and ask questions. ("How far along are you?" "Do you know what it is?" "Have you picked a name?"...). It absolutely needs to be a choice to go through that or not. Not to mention all the physical complications that can arise.

A matter that's been discussed a lot here in Ireland recently and is a topic of much interest at the current Citizen's Assembly.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Nice try there, indeed. After reading your prose I asked myself. "Hey, maybe he's right." Then I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and examined it closely. .

Really? OK, well let me try that. I'll pull some money out of the cash drawer here at the store...



huh...nothing much there..maybe the back?



Nope. Nothing about being founded on Christian principles there!

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

That's the symptom of posting from a tablet and having to squint .

Thought maybe Physicists had discovered/created a new particle in the particleular pantheon!!!!!

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by KatieG

The only people who should have a say in a woman getting an abortion are the woman herself, her partner and her/their doctor. Anyone else is sticking their nose into a personal matter which does not affect them.

I accept that in some cases, but prefer just the woman with the doctor only giving real, unfiltered medical advice to her.

[fuelair]

If the male/mate is trying to prevent her, a swift kick in the testes is my immediate go to option. And I do love children....and thus only want them born to one or more loving parents who have the ability to care for them and nurture them properly.

[Peter i]

Originally Posted by marplots

Why do they want to do these things? I'm genuinely curious to know.

So am I!

You would think, that a general improvement in public health, better education, not constantly making an effort to keep the poor as poor as possible would be a priority for any decent person?


But when you look at the US as an outsider (I have lived in the US too), it honestly looks like it is a well defined political agenda, to keep as many people as possible both dumb and poor.

Not so long ago the US was in the forefront of developed nations with regards to science, education, health, innovation and such.
The rest of the world basically adored the US.

And then they lost it.
Somehow the people who would have a real benefit from real health and education reforms were convinced, that they should vote for the people least likely to do that.
And now they have elected an orange buffoon for president. The very type of person who has ********** up their lives, health and economy.


I really wonder why!

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Peter i

So am I!

You would think, that a general improvement in public health, better education, not constantly making an effort to keep the poor as poor as possible would be a priority for any decent person?

Yes, that is what I was thinking.

Quote:

But when you look at the US as an outsider (I have lived in the US too), it honestly looks like it is a well defined political agenda, to keep as many people as possible both dumb and poor.

Not so long ago the US was in the forefront of developed nations with regards to science, education, health, innovation and such.
The rest of the world basically adored the US.

And then they lost it.
Somehow the people who would have a real benefit from real health and education reforms were convinced, that they should vote for the people least likely to do that.
And now they have elected an orange buffoon for president. The very type of person who has ********** up their lives, health and economy.


I really wonder why!

We should probably ask them.

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Why 20 weeks? What's the rationale? I'd think viability (26 or 27 weeks) would be a nice cutoff point.



What a weird way to craft a law. Try to con the woman by manipulating her feelings in a moment of weakness, basically.

Because viability is limited by current medical technology and has nothing to do with whether that unborn child has a right to live.

In my opinion it does.
20 weeks I am sure is a frame that picked that they hoped would pass.

You call it conning a woman I call it trying to save a life.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Because viability is limited by current medical technology and has nothing to do with whether that unborn child has a right to live.

In my opinion it does.
20 weeks I am sure is a frame that picked that they hoped would pass.

You call it conning a woman I call it trying to save a life.

Probably. I see some other states are already at a 22 to 24 week cutoff.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Oh, I think that anytime you get a bunch of Masons together they're gonna be well versed on what they're doing. Yet at the core of their decisions you will find Christian principles.....Now you can argue against it as much as you wish but that won't change the reality of this.
Chris B.

OK, so kindly show which Christian principles are enshrined in the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Be specific, now.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by catsmate

A matter that's been discussed a lot here in Ireland recently and is a topic of much interest at the current Citizen's Assembly.

I just read the recent news on this. Seems the only way to change the current constitutional ban to allow any exemption, other than the life of the mother, is by a popular referendum, the same way the ban was voted in. Is there not another way Ireland can decide human rights than the vote of the people?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Oh, I think that anytime you get a bunch of Masons together they're gonna be well versed on what they're doing. Yet at the core of their decisions you will find Christian principles.....Now you can argue against it as much as you wish but that won't change the reality of this.
Chris B.

"Now, you can present compelling and conclusive evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about as much as you wish but that won't change that I don't know what I'm talking about.

"Go Trump!"

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

So which Christian principle is it that says a black man is worth 3/5 of a white man?

Slight derail from this train wreck of a thread, but this is a personal pet peeve of mine. One, obviously, there is no Christian principle that says that slaves were worth only 3/5s of a free person. Two, not all blacks were slaves and not all whites were free. There were a number of free blacks that fought with some of the founders to end slavery, just as there were plenty of white people that were sold into slavery or indentured servitude. And three, you do realize that the 3/5s rule was a compromise that only applied to Congressional apportionment? The pro-slavery states would have been loved to count their slaves as full people. They would have been thrilled to count their slaves as five people each, since it would have massively increased their power in Congress and made it that much harder to end slavery. It was the anti-slavery founders that made the quite obvious point that you can't claim that slaves aren't people but property in one breath, then claim that for the purposes of Congressional power that slaves should count as full people with all the rights of people with the next breath.


/derail

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by Cleon

OK, so kindly show which Christian principles are enshrined in the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Be specific, now.

I suppose you could argue that a Constitution that fails to mention specifically any certain religion to be the work of secular men but, you'd be wrong. While creating their ideas for a perfect Government, freedom of religion was by far one of the most important parts of the document. Creating a document that respects all forms of religion was the idea. Secularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever. Even the date on the document hints to the founder's Christian principles, "In the Year of Our Lord"........

Pasted from: http://www.heritage.org/research/lec...stian-founding

"Even though Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill or Rights, the Founders of the American republic were influenced by Christian ideas in significant ways. For example:

Their faith taught them that humans were sinful. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.” This conviction led them to avoid utopian experiments such as those later pursued during the French Revolution and to adopt a constitutional system characterized by separated powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Many Enlightenment thinkers in this era, by way of contrast, tended to favor a strong, centralized government run by experts.[24]

They firmly believed that God ordained moral standards, that legislation should be made in accordance with these standards, and that moral laws took precedence over human laws. This conviction manifests itself in their abstract reflections (e.g., James Wilson’s law lectures, parts of which read like St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica) and practical decisions (e.g., all but one Supreme Court Justice prior to John Marshall argued publicly that the Court could strike down an act of Congress if it violated natural law).[25]


Similarly, Christianity informed the Founders’ understanding of substantive concepts such as “liberty.” Barry Shain has identified eight different ways in which the word was used in the 18th century. Only one of these is related to the excessively individualistic way the term is often used today. Instead, the Founders were far more likely to see liberty as the freedom to do what is morally correct, as illustrated by United States Supreme Court Justice James Wilson’s marvelous dictum: “Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.”[26]


America’s Founders believed that humans were created in the imago dei—the image of God. Part of what this means is that humans are reasonable beings. This led them to conclude that we the people (as opposed to the elite) can order our public lives together through politics rather than force. It also helped inform early (and later) American opposition to slavery.[27]"

Chris B.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Really? OK, well let me try that. I'll pull some money out of the cash drawer here at the store...



huh...nothing much there..maybe the back?



Nope. Nothing about being founded on Christian principles there!

Interesting how you would happen to have a pre 1957 $5 bill handy from the cash drawer. A bill prior to the mandate requiring all US bills be printed with the motto "In God We Trust". Of course most US coins already had the motto "In God We Trust" prior to 1957 though.............Since 1832? or so?

I suppose you are trying to suggest our National motto is not "In God We Trust"........That is our National motto though. Feel free to check.
Chris B.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Interesting how you would happen to have a pre 1957 $5 bill handy from the cash drawer. A bill prior to the mandate requiring all US bills be printed with the motto "In God We Trust". Of course most US coins already had the motto "In God We Trust" prior to 1957 though.............Since 1832? or so?

I suppose you are trying to suggest our National motto is not "In God We Trust"........That is our National motto though. Feel free to check.
Chris B.

I presume that in your abundant and exhaustive research you have noticed the year in which "In God We Trust" became our National Motto?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by bruto

I presume that in your abundant and exhaustive research you have noticed the year in which "In God We Trust" became our National Motto?

I wonder why that should matter? The year,that is. Isn't the important part that it is officially our National motto? You know, according to the SC it's not out of bounds,even though it's found in the Bible............
Chris B.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I wonder why that should matter? The year,that is. Isn't the important part that it is officially our National motto? You know, according to the SC it's not out of bounds,even though it's found in the Bible............
Chris B.

Seriously? Because if you use the motto to make a claim about on which principles the country was founded, then your argument would kind of fall flat when you find out the motto is about 180 years younger than the country...

[marplots]

Originally Posted by bruto

I presume that in your abundant and exhaustive research you have noticed the year in which "In God We Trust" became our National Motto?

Didn't we trust God before that?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by marplots

Didn't we trust God before that?

Which one?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Seriously? Because if you use the motto to make a claim about on which principles the country was founded, then your argument would kind of fall flat when you find out the motto is about 180 years younger than the country...

Nope, the motto "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with the founding as it was added later.

My views on why the US was founded on Christian principles are outlined above.

"In God We Trust" does say something about the US though. Even the US Supreme Court has decided that the US recognizes that our "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".........How's that to debunk a secular claim?
Chris B.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Which one?

The one in the founder's Bibles?
Chris B.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Which one?

The God one. Supreme being, maker and sustainer of the universe. The usual suspect.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by marplots

The God one. Supreme being, maker and sustainer of the universe. The usual suspect.

Allah?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

The one in the founder's Bibles?
Chris B.

Maybe it's Allah? Or Vishnu? Isn't specified, is it?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Allah?

Is that Arabic for God? Mostly we use English in the US.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by marplots

Is that Arabic for God? Mostly we use English in the US.

Perhaps, but there is no official language, just like there is no official religion.

[gabeygoat]

Nothing says small government like taking choice and control from a woman and her doctor and giving it to the Government instead

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I suppose you could argue that a Constitution that fails to mention specifically any certain religion to be the work of secular men but, you'd be wrong. While creating their ideas for a perfect Government, freedom of religion was by far one of the most important parts of the document. Creating a document that respects all forms of religion was the idea. Secularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever. Even the date on the document hints to the founder's Christian principles, "In the Year of Our Lord"........

OK, so in summary, there are no Christian principles embodied in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

(Seriously, the "the year of our Lord" thing is silly. I use "AD" all the time, and I'm freaking Jewish.)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Cleon

OK, so in summary, there are no Christian principles embodied in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing,

He also seems to not understand what secular means.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by marplots

Is that Arabic for God? Mostly we use English in the US.

Actually yours is YHWH. It is later in the new testament written as colloquially "God", but since you are using the old testament too...

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by fuelair

If the male/mate is trying to prevent her, a swift kick in the testes is my immediate go to option. And I do love children....and thus only want them born to one or more loving parents who have the ability to care for them and nurture them properly.

By that standard half of all kids of **** Outta luck

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for rule 10. Please do not disguise swear words in the public section

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Slight derail from this train wreck of a thread, but this is a personal pet peeve of mine. One, obviously, there is no Christian principle that says that slaves were worth only 3/5s of a free person. Two, not all blacks were slaves and not all whites were free. There were a number of free blacks that fought with some of the founders to end slavery, just as there were plenty of white people that were sold into slavery or indentured servitude. And three, you do realize that the 3/5s rule was a compromise that only applied to Congressional apportionment? The pro-slavery states would have been loved to count their slaves as full people. They would have been thrilled to count their slaves as five people each, since it would have massively increased their power in Congress and made it that much harder to end slavery. It was the anti-slavery founders that made the quite obvious point that you can't claim that slaves aren't people but property in one breath, then claim that for the purposes of Congressional power that slaves should count as full people with all the rights of people with the next breath.


/derail

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Actually yours is YHWH. It is later in the new testament written as colloquially "God", but since you are using the old testament too...

YHWH is just the phrase "I am who am", which is the only answer the deity returned to the question "who are you?" in the Old Testament. Cagey fellow (or lady), God refuses to divulge its actual name. Theology types imagine it's because the name of God could be used for performing magic and miracles. Personally, I think it's because God wrote some bad checks and is trying to avoid unwanted attention. Either that or God's real name is really embarrassing, like Gaylord or Trevor or Wayne or Kristal or Tiffani.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

YHWH is just the phrase "I am who am", which is the only answer the deity returned to the question "who are you?" in the Old Testament. Cagey fellow (or lady), God refuses to divulge its actual name. Theology types imagine it's because the name of God could be used for performing magic and miracles. Personally, I think it's because God wrote some bad checks and is trying to avoid unwanted attention. Either that or God's real name is really embarrassing, like Gaylord or Trevor or Wayne or Kristal or Tiffani.

I am who I am.......Popeye the sailor man.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Reheat

The US founded on Judea Christian Principles

Seems like Judeo-Christian principles don't include freedom of choice. Or at least, not when it's inconvenient to the moral guardians.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Seems like Judeo-Christian principles don't include freedom of choice. Or at least, not when it's inconvenient to the moral guardians.

It all works out because the same people who interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean, ignoring all the bits that contradict their interpretation, also do the same with the Bible. Those people have enormous respect for documents, it's one of the ways you can tell they're so moral, they tell us.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Because viability is limited by current medical technology and has nothing to do with whether that unborn child has a right to live.

Yes, but that's because abotion laws have nothing to do with the right to live. They have everything to do with the right to choose.

And viability is a very important step: it means that the foetus is no longer strictly part of the mother's biological system. It is now an independant human life. I would think this would satisfy your need for a justification to give it the "right" to live.