By HatetheSwamp October 19, 2024 4:35 am Category: Religion (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Let me start off with two words. I support the Dingbat. I support Kammy.

Curt praised and hooted for KK over this just yesterday... and on the night she blew off Roman Catholics at the Al Smith Dinner.

'Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally': Kamala Harris counters hecklers at La Crosse event

About 20 minutes into Harris' speech, a number of attendees were escorted out, while shouting "Jesus is Lord" at those around them.

"Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally," she said. "No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.

The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the protesters were shown toward the door.

Exactly.

The essence of this whole campaign may very well come down to that brief exchange...

...and, not because Kammy was snarky toward people who were proclaiming their faith in Jesus, though that's an important part of it.

But, no.

What Cackles Mckneepads did was assault the whole EFFINFirstAmendment by demeaning the free speech rights of people over their free exercise of religion.

How freakin friggin EFFINunamerican!

For ole pb,...

That brief moment defines the whole campaign.

I support the Dingbat. I support the Dingbat...

...but, it won't all be fun and games. Some of it will be uuuuuuugly!

Cited and related links:

1. jsonline.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on October 19, 2024 5:01 am Go to :55f. Note the glee shining from KK's eyes as she tells those Christians they are at the wrong rally. Gleeful Christophobia. Win or lose... It's the image that will, for all history, define Kammy's campaign. View Video by Curt_Anderson on October 19, 2024 8:03 am Your timeline is wrong. Harris was saying Trump installed justices into SCOTUS that overturned Roe v Wade. The hecklers then shouted “you lie!” She replied “you guys are at the wrong rally…”. Only as they were being escorted out did they yell “Jesus is Lord”. by HatetheSwamp on October 19, 2024 8:11 am Oy freakin friggin EFFINvey, Curt. For an old white guy, you have good ears... or, claim to. by Curt_Anderson on October 19, 2024 8:27 am I at least can hear “you lie”, certainly not “Jesus is Lord” before she said “you guys are at the wrong rally”. Anyway the reporters on the scene heard what I posted two days ago. See my links below the video I posted. Anyway, if they had yelled what and when you claimed, it’s a non sequitur and inappropriate. selectsmart.com by HatetheSwamp on October 19, 2024 8:35 am I don't think it's a non sequitur. Why do you suppose Christians struggle to preserve the life of the unborn? by Donna on October 19, 2024 8:42 am Curt, they can't help but lie. It's in their genes. They give Trump a pass on all of his lies because they, too, are liars. by islander on October 19, 2024 9:03 am Why are Christians anti-choice? Well some of them say that a fertilized egg is a 'person', so they have the right to tell a woman that she doesn't own her body and they want the state to back them up on that. Plus, for some, it's a cheap and easy way for them to feel self-righteous and sanctimonious even though they don't want their tax dollars used to help those women who give birth to babies who are real persons with minds capable of thought and feelings. by Donna on October 19, 2024 9:11 am The sanctity of life should extend to fetus-beating women too, no? by Donna on October 19, 2024 9:12 am Oops! "Bearing", not "beating". LOL! by HatetheSwamp on October 19, 2024 9:51 am "Why are Christians anti-choice?" isle, For me and tens of millions, it's precisely the same argument as the argument to end slavery. Slave owners had two arguments. 1. We don't tell you to own slaves. All we ask is to be able to make our own choice. Because... 2. Them d@ng n¡gg€rs ain't a human life. If, isle, going to convince defenders of pre-born LIFE, your going to have to convince us on both points. "...some of them say that a fertilized egg is a 'person" Some, isle. But not many. What we believe is that it's a LIFE. We can argue this AGAIN if you like but to convince us, you'll have to respect our beliefs... and begin with what we believe and not tell us that we don't believe what we think we believe. At this point, the tens of millions of us who moderate and reasonable in defense of LIFE, and who love this nation "of the people, by the people and for the people," are happy that, in the US, abortion is now regulated "by the people and their elected representatives." by Indy! on October 19, 2024 11:12 am Reading peebs explanation it's easy to see why only about 1/3 of the nation buys it. About the same number that buy into Mayor McCheese's lies. There is nothing in the Bible or Christ ever said about abortion. However there are some entries like this one... 1 SAMUEL 15:3 (King James version): Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. So again - just "Christian" and GOPers not knowing their own information very well. Jebus and his daddy were perfectly fine with killing (actual) babies when it served their purposes. by islander on October 19, 2024 2:04 pm The slave owners, just like everyone else throughout history, knew that slaves were people. Millions of Christians believe that a fertilized egg is a person, so tell me, Hate, what do you think a fertilized egg lacks that would make it a person? What I believe and you apparently don’t, is that I own my body. The state doesn’t. It's a fundamental right and just like me, a woman owns her body as well, not the state. That’s called bodily autonomy. This is probably why you couldn’t understand the question I asked you a while back, or maybe you just didn’t want to answer it because it deals with bodily autonomy. So I’ll ask you again…If someone was dying because that person couldn’t get a kidney that matched…And you were a perfect match. Donating your kidney would be the only way to save that person’s life. You were that person’s only hope…Do you think the state should have the power to take one of your kidneys in order to save that person’s life if you chose not to? by Indy! on October 19, 2024 2:13 pm Another angle on the same idea... Would peebs stand by and let that person die knowing he could save them? I say hell no - instead he would claim he couldn't because he was too busy voting for Trump. by Donna on October 19, 2024 2:37 pm There are many people who sincerely consider abortion to be murder, though. I totally understand that point of view. What I don't understand is how someone, for example Kari Lake who's running for the US Senate to represent AZ, can say that the sanctity of life is important to them, but oppose aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother as if the mother's life isn't worthy of saving and that she should have no say in the matter. by oldedude on October 19, 2024 11:37 pm donna. That is a great question, and one that many people are in a quandary about. The "old" reason is the new life will produce more offspring. We're not in that world now. I believe this is up to the couple. I can't explain it any better or more through than that. I would hope my daughter gets saved, and will treat my granddaughter with the same respect and pray she has great grandchildren herself. My choice is that one of them will die. It is not my choice. by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 6:13 am "Millions of Christians believe that a fertilized egg is a person, so tell me, Hate, what do you think a fertilized egg lacks that would make it a person?" isle, I have no idea whatsoever how you define the term "person." And, I will say that it's possible that most of this brouhaha is merely semantics... people talking past each other. "This is probably why you couldn’t understand the question..." Ah, yes. A blast from the past. UNDERSTAND MAN Yeah, isle. I think we all wish we could be you. Your sense of moral superiority, and your condescension and self-righteous is precisely why this issue divides people. People on both sides share those sins... ...sadly... for the sake of the pre-born and for the women facing what is, often, a heartbreaking choice. You and you lot... on both sides... do much harm. by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 6:27 am "What I don't understand is how someone, for example Kari Lake who's running for the US Senate to represent AZ, can say that the sanctity of life is important to them, but oppose aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother as if the mother's life isn't worthy of saving and that she should have no say in the matter." Donna, Is that true? Here, in Pennsylvania, I've seen ads dozens of times claiming that Dave McCormick promotes a complete ban on all abortion without an exception, even to save the life of the mother. I've been aware of McCormick since he ran against Dr Oz in 022 for the GOP senatorial nomination. He strikes me as something close to a Mitt Romney GOP. The ads struck me curious... doubtful. He's being described in the same language you use for Lake. I went to the McCormick web site. What he's accused of on abortion is absolutely a lie. He's prolife, like pb. But, on the regulation of abortion, he's very much in agreement with the two of us. He clearly and absolutely supports an exception to save the life of the mother. I'm not a fan of Keri Lake. What I know of her is that she's a Trump clone. Trump supports an exception to save the life of the mother. Are you certain that you are being fair to Lake? by islander on October 20, 2024 6:46 am Hate, you couldn’t explain why you don’t think a fertilized egg is a person.And this is probably the most important question regarding a woman's right to choose. You also were afraid to answer my question regarding bodily autonomy. Like I said, you seem to believe that the state ultimately owns a woman’s body…But when it came to your own body and the person dying in need of a kidney you didn’t want to answer the question of who ultimately owns your body… You? Or are you willing to give that ownership to the state since you want to give ownership of a woman’s body to the state? by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 6:59 am "You also were afraid to answer my question regarding bodily autonomy." Right. You're reading ole pb's mind again. Donna and pb are talking about one thing. You are talking about something else. But, tentatively, I'll bite. For the sake of clarity, give the SS community a precise definition of "person." And, let's hope that we can not talk past each other. Having said that, I think it more important that we dialog on what Donna is talking about. I'm sure you recall we've failed to dialog about this successfully in the past. But, why not!!!!!? by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 8:04 am Back to Curt's comment: "Your timeline is wrong. Harris was saying Trump installed justices into SCOTUS that overturned Roe v Wade. The hecklers then shouted “you lie!” She replied “you guys are at the wrong rally…”. Only as they were being escorted out did they yell “Jesus is Lord”" Interestingly, Fox News has been all over this during the weekend, as I'm sure Curt knows. Fox News has cleaned up the audio. The protesters absolutely were saying "Jesus is Lord" when Kammy proclaimed that they came to the wrong rally. And, it was two guys who are reap pistols and who loooooove being in front of cameras and speaking to the press. My guess they will be prominent in the days to come. You might even see them in a campaign ad. ***** One advantage Kammy had is that Trump was known to be the far nastier of the two. But, IMO, not n'more. She's a b-i-itch! by Donna on October 20, 2024 8:32 am Hts- Kari Lake changed her stance on abortion because her prior stance was extremely unpopular and was driving away support for her US Senate campaign, but she used to be a supporter of AZ's draconian 19th century law that outlawed all abortions - no exceptions. If Prop 139 passes that law will be overturned, and Kari has recently indicated that she'd support the will of Arizonans. Her challenger, Democrat Ruben Gallego has always staunchly opposed AZ's 19th century abortion ban law. by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 8:43 am Donna, Can you provide a link? by Donna on October 20, 2024 8:46 am Not offhand, but it's well known here on AZ that she was a staunch supporter of that old law. by Donna on October 20, 2024 8:54 am Correction: AZ's old abortion law did make an exception in cases involving the life of the mother, but not for rape or incest. The article below provides a good synopsis of Lake's changing stance on abortion. cnn.com by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2024 9:26 am "Lake released a five-minute video explaining her stance. She declared that the “total ban on abortion” is “out of line” with where Arizonans are on the issue and said she supports exceptions for cases of rape and incest. She also actively lobbied state lawmakers to overturn the law, CNN previously reported." by islander on October 21, 2024 3:51 am Two questions and Hate refused to answer them. Those questions are at the heart of the abortion debate. Until those questions are settled, arguing about abortion will go nowhere. From my personal experience, those are the two questions the anti-choice people do their best to avoid discussing. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 4:35 am Two questions and Hate refused to answer them. Those questions are at the heart of the abortion debate. Link us to even one article or video in which Kammy or OrangeTurdBad address either of your questions. It's okay. We'll wait. But, I'll add this: Ole pb doesn't recall your questions be raised by anyone but you. They strike me as what Catholics argue about... and we know that you were raised Catholic. ***** AND, I've promised to go forward and asked you to define terms. I'm waiting on that, too. by islander on October 21, 2024 5:37 am I think you understand the questions, Hate. I believe everybody else here understands the questions too. The questions are straight forward, and like I said they're at the heart of the abortion debate but you are unwilling or afraid to to answer them. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 5:53 am isle, The questions are irrelevant to my interest, which is political. However,... ... my offer to discuss your questions remains. It's still on the table. by islander on October 21, 2024 5:56 am It's impossible to separate those two questions from the political. The political depends on and is based on the answers to those questions. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 6:24 am isle, Splain how those questions have implications for our nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" as it applies the Tenth Amendment to the sticky issue of regulating abortion. I'm ready to go. by meagain on October 21, 2024 7:39 am "I don't think it's a non sequitur. Why do you suppose Christians struggle to preserve the life of the unborn?" That is a sweeping statement and not quite an honest one. reserving the life of the unborn is not in question. Possibly the majority of Christians do not believe in preserving the nowhere near developed foetuses that are accidental and unwanted or likely to be handicapped. Only some Christians sects mainly, believe in a blanket "protection at all stages. by Indy! on October 21, 2024 9:52 am Why rehash these same arguments? The GOP wanted to send it back to the states and the states are voting - without fail - to either restore Roe or other legislation very similar. If the GOP can't live with that - and want to pass a national law - then we know it's only about controlling women because what we have right now is what they allegedly wanted and got. But we all know they are liars. Peebs is lying about everything in this thread - including the part about being a Christian. That has nothing to do with this - it's his misogyny telling him he has to be in control of women. Same reason he's not supporting Kamala and voted for his favorite Fat Orange Ass instead. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 11:03 am "Why do you suppose Christians struggle to preserve the life of the unborn?" I'm pro-life. Years ago, I was connected to the secular Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation. Most of the people associated with it were Christian, but not all. Most of the Christians were Roman Catholic but certainly not all. There was an immense diversity among the members of the group. But,... ... for ole pb, this is about the politics of the issue... how abortion is regulated. Here, in the United States, the extremely radical Bill of Rights reserves for citizens and the states the authority to rule over every matter not spelled out in the Constitution. I'm asking isle to spell out his definition of a "person" in order discuss abortion as a moral and philosophical issue. I'm still waiting. Perhaps you can encourage him. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 11:14 am Curt, Kamala Harris Begins Melting After Rallygoer Says 'Jesus Is Lord' babylonbee.com by Donna on October 21, 2024 11:15 am There's nothing in our Constitution that protects the life of a mother seeking to abort the fetus she's carrying to save her own life? Our Constitution allows fir state legislatures to rule that the life of the mother doesn't count? by meagain on October 21, 2024 11:17 am The ancient Greeks and Romans were way far ahead of the GOP and the Pro-life" crowd. "Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece. The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to. The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote: ...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation." Aristotle, Politics 7.16 by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 11:27 am "There's nothing in our Constitution that protects the life of a mother seeking to abort the fetus she's carrying to save her own life? Our Constitution allows fir state legislatures to rule that the life of the mother doesn't count?" Donna, Duh Liberty is a startling concept to you Big Brother lot, eh? by Indy! on October 21, 2024 11:32 am Let's look it up because I think you're confused again, peebs... What does liberty mean to Americans? As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will. Ooops. Looks like you lost another one. by Donna on October 21, 2024 11:32 am Liberty to prevent the mother from dying? It sounds to me like you like that. by meagain on October 21, 2024 12:11 pm Exactly, indy. The Rule of Law itself makes it clear and that is the foundation of any Constitution. In essence, it says that people and government are equally bound to follow the Law with the addition that governments are prohibited from arbitrary actions. It does not even have to be written down. It is what any Constitution is founded on. So many people are taught about the Constitution above all, that they only understand words and not meaning, intent, or history. by Donna on October 21, 2024 12:15 pm I meant to say in my last post - Liberty to prevent the mother from living? It sounds to me like you like that, Hate. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 12:26 pm Donna, The liberty is radical. Your suggestion is absurd. by Donna on October 21, 2024 12:38 pm But that's what's happening. I know you don't give a damn, but one woman in Texas even died because of Texas's draconian abortion law. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 12:48 pm Donna, That is as may be. I don't agree with many of the states' abortion laws. But, I do believe that this should be a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." You seem to suggest that you don't. Please explain if you think I'm wrong. ***** Is the Supreme Court telling Texas that it can't create its own abortion regulations? Freedom, BABY! by Donna on October 21, 2024 12:52 pm Well, call me what you want, but I don't think that our federal government should allow states to kill innocent people. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 12:55 pm "kill innocent people..." It doesn't. by Donna on October 21, 2024 12:59 pm The Texas law made it impossible for a doctor to save her life without breaking that law. So she was in effect killed by that law. I hope her family sues the living crap out of the Texas legislature that enacted that law. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 1:06 pm Donna, I don't know the particulars of the tragedy. But, I doubt the reporting of Curt's Holy Trinity and po's metaphorical Rachel. And, as we've discussed for years, I disagree with many states' abortion regulations. Pennsylvania's law closely resembles Roe v Wade. by Donna on October 21, 2024 1:09 pm It was in all the papers, Hts. It woukdn't surprise me if your metaphorical Sean Hannity didn't cover it, though. by Indy! on October 21, 2024 1:21 pm I'm not on twitter anymore, but from what I understand when the veeps were debating this in real time and Vance claimed Walz's abortion anecdotes about women not getting treated in a timely manner due to Trump's abortion restrictions were fabrications... The woman Walz was referring to tweeted her photo and story to back him up. by Indy! on October 21, 2024 1:22 pm Thanks, meagain! by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 1:31 pm "Vance claimed Walz's abortion anecdotes about women not getting treated in a timely manner due to Trump's abortion restrictions were fabrications..." I don't recall that at all, Indy. I believe JD did mention babies who survive abortions not being treated, based on a law Tampon signed. But, I'm willing to be corrected by a source not from Curt's Holy Trinity nor po's metaphorical Rachel. by Donna on October 21, 2024 1:35 pm I got a little mixed up. There was a woman in Texas who almost died because she was forced to travel out of state to get an emergency abortion in order to save her own life. The woman who died because of a draconian state abortion law was Amber Thurman, a Georgia resident. Everyone in America who pays attention knows about Amber except Fox News junkies. The ad below is about Amber Thurman's tragic and preventable death. She'd be alive today if Roe v Wade was still the law. View Video by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 1:52 pm Donna, A Kammy campaign ad as news reporting? That takes Curt's Holy Trinity and po's metaphorical Rachel to a level of bias I could not have imagined to this point. Excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt. Again, I am opposed to many state abortion laws but embrace government by the Tenth Amendment. by Donna on October 21, 2024 2:19 pm Kamala even brought up Amber Thurman during the debate, but you're acting like you've never heard of her until today. Do you know how to use Google? You should be able to find lots of news articles about her death. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2024 2:36 pm Donna, Excuse my appropriation of the term. po and Curt especially but all of you woke lot have attempted to drop so much FAKE NEWS on the SS community... and, you may have noticed this... I only take seriously links not from Curt's Holy Trinity and po's metaphorical Rachel. FYI, the right-wing media brings up Amber Thurman periodically... but only to argue that the hospital caused the problem, not the Georgia law. I don't trust that. But, I certainly don't trust Curt's Holy Trinity nor po's metaphorical Rachel either... ....and, I sure as h€|| don't accept a Kammy ad under the guise of news. by Indy! on October 21, 2024 3:39 pm I believe the woman in question was Jaci Statton, but I'm not sure. And if I looked it up you would reject it because no one in the Fox bubble reported it. You live in UNreality - we live in reality. That's why you're fine with letting women die for your fake bible shit that is not even in the bible and we live in reality. by Donna on October 21, 2024 5:00 pm "FYI, the right-wing media brings up Amber Thurman periodically... but only to argue that the hospital caused the problem, not the Georgia law." - Hts And they're full of shit. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2024 2:13 am "And they're full of shit." Says the person who passed on a campaign ad as a news report. Oy freakin friggin EFFINvey! by islander on October 22, 2024 4:06 am Hate, You asked the questions ”Why do you suppose Christians struggle to preserve the life of the unborn?” You read my answer(post #7) but mistakenly thought only a small number of Christians believe or claim to believe a fetus is a human person. Those believers make up the largest share of Christians in the world, Catholics (1.28 billion), Eastern Orthodox, and beginning in the late 20th century most Evangelicals consider abortion murder. If the unborn fetus is indeed a person like the Christians say, to kill that person, no matter what stage in that persons life, would be murder. If it’s not a person, the mother’s right to bodily autonomy far out weighs any concern the state might have for a fetus. You say sanctity of life, they say human person; in your opinion what is the difference? And why should the state take the side of your spiritual beliefs over those of Christians and over our fundamental right of bodily autonomy? Check out the meaning of sanctity. Are you someone who is willing to give the state ownership of your body? This why the kidney question is so important. These kinds of questions are at the core of the abortion issue in our country. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2024 4:49 am isle, Good post... ...which I answered in detail but SS didn't take it and it disappeared. I'll try again later. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2024 7:48 am Okay. Back to it. "You read my answer(post #7) but mistakenly thought only a small number of Christians believe or claim to believe a fetus is a human person." Not exactly. In fact, several times over the years, I've noted that it would be a good thing for you to find a Catholic on SS for dialog. I don't share your categories. I'm not interested in meeting you where you are. The American pro-life movement is extremely diverse. What people at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University think about abortion is very unlike what Catholics think, though the bottom line is the same... and the passion is intense. "If the unborn fetus is indeed a person like the Christians say..." Catholics say that. But, I don't. And, I'm not certain that the "person" issue is a big deal among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists. I never hear that, say, from James Dobson. My point?, your "person" argument, no matter how convincing, won't win you any converts among Southern Baptists. And, as far as I know, other Christians who are pro-life, Mormons, for example. "...why should the state take the side of your spiritual beliefs over those of Christians and over our fundamental right of bodily autonomy?" isle, this is where the rubber meets the road for ole pb. I don't want the United States to be a Christian nation. I have no interest the state taking the side of my spiritual beliefs, or yours, or anyone's. For the state to do that would be the most profound and dangerous violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that I can imagine. "Are you someone who is willing to give the state ownership of your body?" I am not. I believe anyone who is, is fool. Here's what I believe: Ours is a Constitutional Representative Republic. I believe that the power to regulate abortion belongs to the States and the people. As I've said many, many times in the past, the particulars of Roe v Wade's abortion regulations are not offensive to me politically. What does bother me is that the highest Court of the central government decreed those regulations and forced them on every man and woman in the nation. In fact, in Pennsylvania, our legislature has, essentially, written Roe v Wade into our law, as the law of the people. And, as far as I can tell, our law is unlikely to be changed in the foreseeable future. ***** Also,... My own view on life beginning at conception is extremely unsophisticated and I cling to it tenaciously. We can try, but I'm probably the worst person for you to debate abortion with as a philosophical or moral issue. by meagain on October 22, 2024 12:26 pm Why do Americans make such an issue about being a Constitutional Republic? The great majority of countries are that. Russia is. What does it mean in practice? Again nothing different than a Constitutional Monarchy in the Westminster style. It is just a different way in which the people rule through their representatives and a different, and inferior way, of having checks and balances to accumulation of power. But both are Representative democracies. Yours because of the powers of the President, flawed and bordering on the undemocratic. I agree that you are the wrong one to have a debate with about abortion. You are stuck in the moral abyss where women are second-class citizens subject to the whims of their masters and the new priesthood and its false gods. Women had to fight for equality in voting suffrage and in education. The time will come when they explode over control of their own bodies and fate. For abortion is a question of ordering a particular fate on them. by Indy! on October 22, 2024 12:33 pm 67% of Americans are pro-choice. That's the way it's always been with a few points shifting one way over the other every now and then. In the end, the anti-choice crowd is just whining louder. They got away with it until they eliminated Roe thru questionable means. Now the states are in control and the pendulum is already swinging far back the other way where it obviously belongs. by Donna on October 22, 2024 12:59 pm Adding to what Indy said, from Pew Research: Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade 62% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, little changed since before the court’s decision A majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases. *** Iow, the activist Catholic justices, the Opus Dei Supremes, undermined the will of the People in the Dobbs decision. What's most concerning to me about Trump 2.0 is how servile he's been to Christian nationalists, and what that might mean for a second term, considering the Christian nationalist agenda that's been laid out in Project 2025 - a document that was written by the Christian nationalist think tank, The Heritage Foundation, whuch JD Vance wrote the "Forward" to and which contains over 200 references by name to Donald Trump. pewresearch.org by islander on October 22, 2024 1:13 pm You can give up trying to pretend that there aren’t many Christians who view abortion as the murder of unborn children. Millions of Christians do indeed believe that. I mentioned it because made it clear numerous time that you see yourself as "a follower of Christ" which I would guess means a Christian. It’s appears obvious to me that talking about those many Christian’s beliefs about abortion makes you uncomfortable, so to get on with the subject of abortion and bodily autonomy. I asked you; "Are you someone who is willing to give the state ownership of your body?" You replied; ”I am not. I believe anyone who is, is fool.” You believe the state should not be able to violate your bodily autonomy even to save another persons life. That’s what the kidney example demonstrated. I don’t have a problem with that since I believe the same. What I do see as a problem is you claiming ownership of your body but you're quite willing to let the state violate a woman’s ownership of her body. I think refusing to donate a kidney to save another person’s life under certain circumstances could be considered a selfish act just as under certain circumstances I think a woman refusing to carry her pregnancy to term could be considered a selfish act. Although I would do my best to try and urge the person who refused to donate a kidney to give serious thought to what they are actually doing, same thing would apply for a woman contemplating an abortion. The difference between us is that in both cases the choice is not mine to make, nor do I want the state to have the power to take that choice from them and violate either person’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2024 1:20 pm Gang, I tried to be open constructive. by islander on October 22, 2024 4:02 pm Hate, Here’s something else that I think will help you to better understand the significance of your willingness to allow the state to violate a woman’s right to bodily autonomy but not your own. Do you know anything about the mortality rate for a woman giving birth compared to donating a kidney? The maternal mortality rate is approximately 25 times higher than the mortality rate for a person who is donating a kidney. by Indy! on October 22, 2024 5:31 pm I tried to be open constructive. That would be a first. 🙄 by islander on October 23, 2024 4:33 am I don't think Hate is capable of that kind of discussion or debate, Indy. by HatetheSwamp on October 23, 2024 4:49 am "A majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases." Donna, Fill me in if I'm wrong. Abortion is legal in every state, right? I'm thinking that it is. What the Dobbs decision did is permit our citizens to regulate abortion, which they are. What's wrong with that. by islander on October 23, 2024 6:37 am This Supreme Court took away a woman’s Constitutional right. A Constitutional right that women have had for more half a century, despite the fact that the people of our country agreed that it was indeed a woman’s right. SCOTUS gave the state the power to deprive a woman of her fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Yet it left intact the principle that state cannot violate a man’s right to ownership of his own body. I think it’s hypocritical for those men who are willing to let the state violate a woman’s right to ownership of her body but are not willing to let the state take away their own right to bodily autonomy. Those on the right, mostly conservative Christians, got what they wanted; I think now they are seeing what a profound mistake they made and they’re having to do a great deal of backpedaling. What they are appealing to now is the phony "states rights" argument that the slave holding states used to keep slavery legal in their respective state. If it is wrong to violate a woman's bodily autonomy, just as slavery is wrong, it is wrong no matter the state in which the woman lives. by HatetheSwamp on October 23, 2024 10:13 am "What they are appealing to now is the phony "states rights" argument that the slave holding states used to keep slavery legal in their respective state." isle, You are isolating a crucial issue in our jurisprudence. But, the Bill of Rights is against you. So, phony? No. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's foundational, not phony. Are you advocating the repeal of the Tenth Amendment? by Indy! on October 23, 2024 10:24 am What you don't seem to understand, pb (and I'm not surprised) is you lose every which way from Sunday... 1) If we have Roe - you're not happy. 2) If we eliminate Roe and go to the states, the states will simply reinstate Roe or something you like even less. 3) If we go all the way and you losers get control of everything and you pass a national ban on abortion - people will just do it on their own like they did before Roe (which is what led to Roe - Roe was less onerous than people doing themselves). And if 3 is where we end up (where YOU want us to end up) - studies have shown there will be MORE abortions - not less. So if your concern is actually "saving lives" (laughable at face value since you're not even a Christian) - you... 1) Lose 2) Lose 3) Lose in the end? You're a loser. Own it. by meagain on October 23, 2024 11:29 am It is not abolisihing the tenth Amendment. It is about all rights being equal. All people enjoying equal rights. by HatetheSwamp on October 23, 2024 11:59 am meagain, Do tell. by Indy! on October 23, 2024 2:38 pm Peebs lives in the wrong country. The one he wants to live in is Afghanistan or Somalia. by oldedude on October 23, 2024 3:05 pm Isle- This Supreme Court took away a woman’s Constitutional right. 10th Amendment issue. AND there's a lot of "if's" in indy's conjecture that "if" this all happens, the "result" "will" be this. AND the US is still going through phases where they weren't allowed before. I think (hope) that Florida's law will be overturned. NOT to have Amendment 4 (right to an abortion from conception to full term and during delivery), but to stick to the 15-16 week area, and of course with rape or incest clause. Those on the right, mostly conservative Christians, got what they wanted; I think now they are seeing what a profound mistake they made and they’re having to do a great deal of backpedaling. Even conservative Christians and Jews are for "reasonable" laws. Yes, as much as you despise them, and your refusal to negotiate (typical libsheep), about 69% agree with a ban at the 15th-16th week mark. A May 1-24, 2023, survey asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy and found about two-thirds of Americans saying it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose legal abortion in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters. What they are appealing to now is the phony "states rights" argument that the slave holding states used to keep slavery legal in their respective state. If it is wrong to violate a woman's bodily autonomy, just as slavery is wrong, it is wrong no matter the state in which the woman lives. I'm with Lead on this one. It's the constitution. And a primary pillar of it. Like it or not. news.gallup.com by Indy! on October 23, 2024 4:10 pm I love it when you act like you're going to school me and then inadvertently admit I was right, Odorous. 😂 by Indy! on October 23, 2024 4:11 pm And please stop raping children. 🙄 by islander on October 24, 2024 6:14 am Like I said, od. Hate is using the State’s Right’s argument in the same phony way the southern states used it to support their right to own slaves. That’s what the Civil War was fought over. He wants the state to have the power to deny a woman her fundamental right to bodily autonomy but not to have the power to deny him his own right. I’m in favor of state’s rights only to the extent that they can control how their state operates within the state itself. I want a strong central government that protects all of our fundamental rights regardless of which state we live in. Hate recognizes our fundamental right to bodily autonomy…The state, for example, cannot force a medical procedure on you if you refuse it, even if it is to save your own life. And Hate agrees with the example I gave that the state cannot force you to donate a kidneyto save another person’s life. Obviously that too is a prime example of our right to bodily autonomy. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t give a list of the powers delegated to United States by the Constitution. That’s because the they can’t all be listed so it means rights that are implied or inferred. Your fundamental right to own your own body is inferred. As Hate said, only a fool would relinquish his bodily autonomy to the state. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2024 6:44 am OD, You probably remember. When that Colorado Supreme Court case was before the US Supreme Court earlier this year... ... in which it was being argued that, under the 14th Amendment, Trump would no longer be eligible to hold public office,... ...we, on SS, agreed that there is tension at the very least,... perhaps even outright disagreement,... between the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Article 1 of the 14th Amendment says, in part, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... Very anti 10th Amendment. We also discussed that today's US Supreme Court has reversed directions compared to the Court in the last FIFTY PLUS years and weighted the 10th Amendment over the 14th. And,... ...that what it did with abortion in the Dobbs decision is to declare that there is no right to abortion that is implied or inferred that would prevent the states from regulating abortion through its elected representatives. Considering that the Dobbs vote was 6-3, that precedent will probably hold for a long while. Don't you agree? by Indy! on October 24, 2024 10:40 am For all of the MAGAts talk about a "reasonable" abortion law - they still keep shooting for a national ban. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page