User Tag List

Page 19 of 35 FirstFirst ... 91617181920212229 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 513

Thread: The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

  1. #271
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    12,671
    Thanks
    7,032
    Thanked 8,659 Times in 4,829 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147725
    Agree or disagree, this opinion piece points to what I was talking about. Check out the Republican numbers on the graph.

    Reversing Roe v. Wade Won’t Help Republicans
    Overturning the landmark 1973 ruling, as seems more and more likely, might take away a powerful tool for energizing conservative voters — and it might motivate liberal ones.


    Overturning Roe? Watch what you wish for, Republicans.

    The imagined implications of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s resignation for the future of legal abortion have brought visions of long-awaited sugar plums to anti-abortion politicians and activists.In 2016, Donald Trump pledged to appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, saying that two or three such appointments would mean the end of Roe v. Wade. Next week, we get the name of President Trump’s second pick.Mr. Trump’s anti-abortion supporters —including his evangelical advisers, the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, and most significantly,the Republican Party — are now confident that it is just a matter of time until Roe is overturned.

    Yet the celebration around Roe’s demise seems premature, if not downright dangerous for the Republican Party. For starters, there is muted recognition that even under a Supreme Court populated by conservative Trump appointees, Roe v. Wade may not be overturned. This is because judges of all leanings are guided not only by their views on specific issues but also by foundational jurisprudential principles. These include stare decisis, which holds that unless there is a very strong reason for overturning a prior decision, that decision should stand as the rule for similar cases in the future. Early in our history, Americans rejected the idea of courts swaying to whatever political breeze blew in at election time.Citizens should be able to rely on the durability of constitutional law no matter who is in office.

    Indeed, the last big challenge to Roe was decided on the basis of stare decisis. In 1992, conservative-leaning justices refused to overturn Roe in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey.They explained that although they might have voted against Roe had they been on the court in 1973, they would not vote to overturn it 20 years later. They found that nothing in the law had changed in the interim to justify overturning Roe. In fact, the court held quite the opposite, noting that an entire generation of people “have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” This kind of social reliance might be even more weighty two generations after Roe.

    But let’s assume, as both the left and the right seem to do,that of the nine justices, five of them can see their way clear to overturning Roe.How could that be bad news for Republicans? Since the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan brought the anti-abortion movement into the Republican tent, a coalition of Republicans and evangelicals has focused on abortion generally and Roe in particular, as the super fuel that energizes the right.

    The ongoing Republican commitment to eliminating legal abortion by overturning Roe was evident in the 2016 election. Then, 70 percent of conservative voters said that the issue of Supreme Court appointments was very important to how they planned to vote, more than any other group. Small wonder then that President Trump said in a speech before the Susan B. Anthony List in May, “Now, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, America has a pro-life president, a pro-life vice-president, a pro-life House of Representatives, and 25 pro-life Republican state capitols.”From this perspective, what’s not to like about Roe’s reversal?

    Counterintuitively perhaps, there are quite a few things. Getting rid of Roe would deprive the far right of one of its most crowd-pleasing, rabble-rousing, go-to issues. After all, there is plenty to dislike about abortion, if one is so inclined: the assumed sexual promiscuity of careless women and disobedient girls; the view that abortion is murder; and the power Roe gave to women by liberating them from their traditional place in the home. Roe bashing is a powerful source of solidarity; its absence would deprive Republican politicians and Fox News of the issue that stands at the ready to roil the political pot.

    This is especially true now that fewer targets are available for Republican moral outrage.It used to be that you could always count on anti-abortion and anti-gay hostilities to stoke the base.But gay people and certain gay rights have become more familiar.There is now a right to marry the adult partner of your choosing. To be sure, there has been a presidential full-court press aimed at replacing gays with immigrants as the new subverters of the American way.Yet the last few weeks have revealed that mistreatment of immigrant families can cause popular, religious and legislative blowback, including from conservatives.
    Claims of moral rectitude are not the only thing lost if Roe is overturned.If Roe is reversed, the question of whether abortion should be legal or whether it should be a crime reverts to the states, and this could produce additional concerns for the right. If state legislatures decided not to criminalize abortion, frenzied Republican accusations of “judicial activism— the liberal judicial overreach Roe is claimed to symbolize — would ring completely hollow.

    There is also important evidence that citizens themselves, even in red states, are not entirely sure they want abortion to be a crime. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation legislative tracking poll shows that two-thirds of Americans do not want Roe reversed. In addition, the last several red state referendums asserting that legally protected personhood begins at conception failed. Many states couldn’t get enough signatures to get such proposals on the ballot. It turns out that in the privacy of the voting booth, many citizens have second thoughts about whether they want rights for embryos embedded in their state constitution. Ordinary people — not anti-abortion politicians — may have a more intimate understanding of what is at stake for them in banning abortion absolutely. Women of all parties and religions have abortions or want the right to one should they be faced with the calamity of an unwanted pregnancy. Ask the women and men of Ireland, a staunchly Catholic country, why they voted for a referendum removing Ireland’s constitutional ban on abortion.

    The prospect of criminal abortion in the United States may also light a fire under younger generations of Americans who, in consequence of what has been called “the luxury of legality,” have become rather complacent about reproductive freedoms. For over 40 years, abortion and contraception have been legally available, so, like, that can’t change, right? Women of reproductive age may be about to discover the answer might be yes — and this could energize them to elect more Democrats who will support reproductive rights.

    Justice Kennedy’s resignation has given President Trump the extra Supreme Court appointment he has so craved, and he means to make the most of it. He has already said that his nominee will be young enough to serve for some 40 years. Jubilation now reigns among those who want to go back to the good old bad days of illegal abortion — marked as they were by shame, misery and a massive class divide regarding access to abortion. Republican strategists may not wholly appreciate Mr. Trump’s gift of Roe’s reversal. And there is, of course, the possibility that the justices may decide to follow the path of two prior courts and leave the core legality of reproductive rights alone.





    Last edited by annabenedetti; July 9th, 2018 at 09:50 PM. Reason: fixed link
    So keep your candles burning

    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  2. #272
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,111
    Thanks
    1,470
    Thanked 4,561 Times in 3,426 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147710
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    If you didn't care you wouldn't be harping on it.

    It wasn't an independant clause

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 9th, 2018)

  4. #273
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,111
    Thanks
    1,470
    Thanked 4,561 Times in 3,426 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147710
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    As a compromise to criminalize all abortion? Yes, I'm in.

    How about you?
    Can't give rep or thanks with this handheld, so

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (July 9th, 2018)

  6. #274
    Over 1000 post club eider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,291
    Thanks
    657
    Thanked 807 Times in 551 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    315687
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    you're not very bright, are you?
    And you haven't got anything to debate I see...... hence the insulting back-handers.
    I remember now......... that was your chief characteristic last time we exchanged posts.


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eider For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 9th, 2018),Rusha (July 9th, 2018)

  8. #275
    Over 1000 post club eider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,291
    Thanks
    657
    Thanked 807 Times in 551 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    315687
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    As a compromise to criminalize all abortion? Yes, I'm in.

    How about you?
    I can't join you in any attempt to force rape victims, life threatening pregnancies or those with seriously disabled fetuses into going through to full-term (as long as the pregnancy is under 12 weeks,) I'm afraid.

    But I'd support legislation to protect all other pregnancies yes.

    But if you would include those then I reckon that you should pay up every dollar of every cost for all of their lives, yeah.

  9. #276
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,111
    Thanks
    1,470
    Thanked 4,561 Times in 3,426 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147710
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    And you haven't got anything to debate I see...... hence the insulting back-handers.
    I remember now......... that was your chief characteristic last time we exchanged posts.

    This is a discussion board, not a debate board


    and you deserved nothing better than insults in response to your post

  10. #277
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,148
    Thanks
    18,875
    Thanked 5,449 Times in 3,445 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147586
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    I can't join you in any attempt to force rape victims, life threatening pregnancies or those with seriously disabled fetuses into going through to full-term (as long as the pregnancy is under 12 weeks,) I'm afraid.

    But I'd support legislation to protect all other pregnancies yes.

    But if you would include those then I reckon that you should pay up every dollar of every cost for all of their lives, yeah.
    So you would punish the child for the crime of the father? You would kill an innocent child in the womb just because you don't think he or she would have a comfortable life, that the parents would not love their child?

    What, then, would you do to the rapist? would you "punish" him by putting him in a prison where taxpayers would keep him comfortable?

    No. The ONLY answer to this solution is to protect the child and execute the rapist, because unlike what liberals (and sadly many conservatives) claim, the death penalty IS IN FACT a deterrent.

    "Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

    God specifically forbids killing a child for the actions of what his father has done, and says that "the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Meaning, you execute the criminal, not his children. (Ecclesiastes 18:20)

    Do not do evil, that good may come of it.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (July 9th, 2018)

  12. #278
    Censorship is the height of vanity Rusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    13,021
    Thanks
    18,305
    Thanked 4,472 Times in 2,561 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147744
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    I can't join you in any attempt to force rape victims, life threatening pregnancies or those with seriously disabled fetuses into going through to full-term (as long as the pregnancy is under 12 weeks,) I'm afraid.

    But I'd support legislation to protect all other pregnancies yes.

    But if you would include those then I reckon that you should pay up every dollar of every cost for all of their lives, yeah.
    To exclude the above is a statement that not all unborn babies are worthy of life. In the case of life-threatening pregnancy, the goal should always be to save *both* lives.
    As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
    When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics."
    When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
    -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
    - ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Joshua F. Speed, August 22, 1855





  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rusha For Your Post:

    Idolater (July 9th, 2018),JudgeRightly (July 9th, 2018),WizardofOz (July 9th, 2018)

  14. #279
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,148
    Thanks
    18,875
    Thanked 5,449 Times in 3,445 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147586
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    I can't join you in any attempt to force rape victims, life threatening pregnancies or those with seriously disabled fetuses into going through to full-term (as long as the pregnancy is under 12 weeks,) I'm afraid.

    But I'd support legislation to protect all other pregnancies yes.

    But if you would include those then I reckon that you should pay up every dollar of every cost for all of their lives, yeah.

    RE: "life-threatening"
    Please name one situation where it would be "ok" to stop and kill the baby while trying to save the life of the mother.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (July 9th, 2018)

  16. #280
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,111
    Thanks
    1,470
    Thanked 4,561 Times in 3,426 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147710
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    Ah ha! ......
    You may not realize it, but that's an insulting way to start a post

    still back-pedaling, I see?
    No, i wasn't "backpedaling", and attributing behavior ( or characteristics like being retarded) to another is also insulting

    ........ guessed as much.
    Well, you guessed wrong
    Last edited by ok doser; July 9th, 2018 at 11:12 AM.

  17. #281
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,908
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 2,692 Times in 1,831 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    335215
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    And you haven't got anything to debate I see...... hence the insulting back-handers.
    I remember now......... that was your chief characteristic last time we exchanged posts.
    He's lost his place to intojoy, and he's conflicted on whether or not he wants it back. So occasionally rational, occasionally trolling.

    Poor fellah.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 9th, 2018),eider (July 9th, 2018),Rusha (July 9th, 2018)

  19. #282
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 65 Times in 59 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    10993
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Oh come on, Idol, you know better. Believing in the right to bear arms does not require you to believe in the right to bear every.
    'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' is the operative clause in the Second Amendment. It's an inalienable right. If your children's lives are in danger, I have the right to use any weapon that I can get my hands on in that moment to try to save them. If hand grenades are available, or a bazooka, or a machine gun, or assault weapons with the Most High capacity clips, then my inalienable right permits me to grab them, and to fire away.

    If you want to talk about banning weapons, then I'm on board. But we have to start with the nukes, not small arms of any type; not before nukes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Similarly, many people who would support abortion in the case of the mother's life being in peril would oppose it at any other juncture, though many right wing politicians widen that net a bit to include incest and rape victims. So the either/or just doesn't really work when you observe how people actually come down for the most part.
    All I really meant was that Democrats don't want to ban abortion, so if you do want to ban abortion, then you're probably not a Democrat.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  20. #283
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 65 Times in 59 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    10993
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusha View Post
    To exclude the above is a statement that not all unborn babies are worthy of life. In the case of life-threatening pregnancy, the goal should always be to save *both* lives.
    Agreed. Just as with any life-threatening encounter, the goal is to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the one posing the threat.

    Sadly, when the threat is posed by an adult, oftentimes lethal force is the only correct option; by their own doing.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (July 9th, 2018)

  22. #284
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,111
    Thanks
    1,470
    Thanked 4,561 Times in 3,426 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147710
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    He's lost his place to intojoy, and he's conflicted on whether or not he wants it back. So occasionally rational, occasionally trolling.

    Poor fellah.
    You really missed me, dint you? just can't stop talking about me

    you and artie and town are my fanboys

  23. #285
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,702
    Thanks
    3,347
    Thanked 7,298 Times in 4,198 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147813
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' is the operative clause in the Second Amendment.
    You omitted the foundation of the need for a militia as we lacked a standing army, a thing long gone by the boards, but ignoring that....sure. And the Court has already established you don't have the right to every type of weapon in the exercise of that right, which was my point and one nothing you write here responds to or rebuts.

    It's an inalienable right. If your children's lives are in danger, I have the right to use any weapon that I can get my hands on in that moment to try to save them. If hand grenades are available, or a bazooka, or a machine gun, or assault weapons with the Most High capacity clips, then my inalienable right permits me to grab them, and to fire away.
    Any weapon you can get your hands on to protect yourself (though if that really was a grenade and you harmed others foreseeably you wouldn't get a pass) isn't the same thing as having a right to buy and legally keep every sort of weapon that can be cobbled.

    If you want to talk about banning weapons, then I'm on board. But we have to start with the nukes, not small arms of any type; not before nukes.
    I've already set out the foundation and the argument. The only rational argument had today is where we draw the line in exercise, or if it should be redrawn. I've argued that due to the nature of weapons vastly more destructive than what the forefathers had on hand to meet the right fully, we must do that and reasonably should to protect our citizens better against gun related violence and mass shootings.

    All I really meant was that Democrats don't want to ban abortion, so if you do want to ban abortion, then you're probably not a Democrat.
    There's actually a pro-life group within the Democratic party, just as there are Republicans who are pro-choice, and many more on both sides that support abortion in limited circumstances, though I'd agree the pro-choice crowd has a better home in the Democratic party on the whole.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us