American Taliban | Page 7 | GTAMotorcycle.com

American Taliban

I understand it, but I don’t agree with decisions made on religious principles. I don’t think religion has any part to play in the daily running of people’s lives from a legal perspective. I liken it to a hobby, it’s yours to pursue how you wish in the confines of the law but don’t let it bleed into other people’s lives.
This is tricky territory. I'm not a religious person, but I've always been interested in how religion interplays with politics.

All major religions gave their own laws, our laws were born and largely transitioned from Christian religious law.

Solve this for me. A human being begins at conception, so says virtually every scientist on earth. When human person begins is a theological or philosophical answer, not a scientific one. What happens if religion and philosophy is blanked out and all we have left is scientific cold hard facts?
 
A fraction of 1% of abortions are as you detailed. 93% are first trimester and 44% of those abortions are now chemical. The Supreme Court could have left things as they were. As it is, my feeling is that the availability of chemical abortions will now increase through whatever means is available (unmarked US post mail etc).
For first trimester, it's reasonable to expect near 100% be dobe using oral medication. I think some countries are already there, Sweden comes to mind.

As for leaving things as they were, that would not be possible given their ruling. Scotus is the final stop in challenging US laws, it would be a travesty of justice if Scotus drew a conclusion that a law was wrong then buried the decision because correcting it meant a lot of work.
 
A human being begins at conception
A car is made of metal, metal begins as a rock. So a car is a rock. Right?

See how simple it is.

The wording, and by extension: your thought process, of your question is WRONG.
A human embryo begins at conception. A human embryo is not viable as a HUMAN BEING.
They're not the same thing.

What happens if religion and philosophy is blanked out and all we have left is scientific cold hard facts?
You have abortion laws that respect the rights of women to decide what happens to their own bodies, laws that respect the sanctity of "SELF". Sorta the definition of FREEDOM, the FREEDOM that americans keep shouting about, waving flags about... but DON'T HAVE.
What's the next FREEDOM to go? Contraception? Gay rights? (today being PRIDE day), conscription?
Slippery slope? In one fell swoop these asshats got to the bottom of the hill.
 
You have abortion laws that respect the rights of women to decide what happens to their own bodies, laws that respect the sanctity of "SELF". Sorta the definition of FREEDOM, the FREEDOM that americans keep shouting about, waving flags about... but DON'T HAVE.
What's the next FREEDOM to go? Contraception? Gay rights? (today being PRIDE day), conscription?
Slippery slope? In one fell swoop these asshats got to the bottom of the hill.
But open carry of pistol or ownership of an AR-15 assault rifle is okay.
Slavery once was okay, but now it isn't.
The American Constitution was a document designed to be amended according to the times, to not do so is an insult to the spirit of the rebels that created it.
 
As for leaving things as they were, that would not be possible given their ruling. Scotus is the final stop in challenging US laws, it would be a travesty of justice if Scotus drew a conclusion that a law was wrong then buried the decision because correcting it meant a lot of work.
It could have been VERY simple for Scotus to rule on Roe v Wade, but give the states time to work out ruling on this VERY important decision. They had Roe v Wade for 50yrs, one more ain't gonna hurt... and no one could get a Scotus challenge in a year.
A lot of the NO abortion states are falling back on laws from the 1800s... which seems kinda draconian... this whole affair seems kinda draconian to me.

... but that doesn't fit the narrative. I'm not sure what the narrative IS, but it peaked with Trump. A government's MAIN task is to unite it's people. It seems to me Trump did the opposite and it made a few people happy... VERY FEW, and ****** off everyone else.
Something about the timing... they had Roe V wade for 50 yrs (no it wasn't perfect, but it seemed to work), Trump loads Scotus with red justices, BINGO, WE GOT A SHITSHOW!
... and I don't think the Donald is smart enough, or powerful enough to come up with this by himself
 
Slavery once was okay, but now it isn't.
err NO
Slavery was once LEGAL, it was never "OK"

It seems like this is where they're trying to get.
Go back to the good ol' days when they were FREE to own slaves... with no consideration to the freedom of the slaves.
One IMPORTANT part of the american constitution that hasn't been amended YET: "All men are created equal..." but they're workin' on it. (Yeah, I know..."all men are created equal" is from the declaration of independence, but the 5th amendment expressed that same equality).
This screwing around with reproductive rights is well proven to have HUGE costs. This decision is GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO DIE... not to mention the financial loss, production loss, loss of future opportunities, and the untold cost to some peoples mental health.
...It's LEGAL, but it isn't "OK"
USA: where an AR15 rifle has more rights than it's women... yeah that's "OK" too... BUT THEY GOT WIFI!!!
 
The laws you think you're talking about are civil... and it's private citizens suing private citizens, not involving the state.
Texas can't prosecute someone for something they did in another state.
Interstate travel is a constitutionally protected right...
They literally wrote it that way to get around the constitution. And the right wing Judges ate it up. Imagine a law that says that anyone who sells a gun that is then used in a crime can be sued by any individual in the state? what will the judges say then?
 
Finally, how does a minority get what they want? That's a little more complex. Scotus' decision was the 14th amendment did not guarantee a right of choice, that R v W decision erred interpreting due process and right to privacy. Scotus ruled it did not expressly confer a right to choose, which under US law makes it matter for each state to legislate by elected officials. Now it's complicated - each state now makes the rules - states full of conservatives go one way, liberals the other. I'm guessing within each state, the majority will prevail - which is exactly the way the US Constitution says it should work.
How does the minority get what they want.....through denying Democratic Judges/placing judges who lie to get on the SCOTUS. Saved you a lot of typing for next time.
 
How does the minority get what they want.....through denying Democratic Judges/placing judges who lie to get on the SCOTUS. Saved you a lot of typing for next time.

SCOTUS Judges are nominated by the ruling party that was elected by the people at the time a sitting judge retires/dies... it amazes me how anytime something doesn't go the lefts way they want to cancel it and call it unfair/racist/misogynist...

The democrats could have made an amendment and solidified abortion rights and gay marriage rights at any point when they were in power over the last 50 years, but they didn't. They instead used the issues as political tools to fear monger people each election with the exact scenario that's happening now, just to get them to go out and vote for them.
 
SCOTUS Judges are nominated by the ruling party that was elected by the people at the time a sitting judge retires/dies... it amazes me how anytime something doesn't go the lefts way they want to cancel it and call it unfair/racist/misogynist...

The democrats could have made an amendment and solidified abortion rights and gay marriage rights at any point when they were in power over the last 50 years, but they didn't. They instead used the issues as political tools to fear monger people each election with the exact scenario that's happening now, just to get them to go out and vote for them.
Minor correction, Scotus judges are nominated by Potus, confirmed by the senate.

You're bang on with the rest. It's hard work to do a constitutional amendment -- democrats aren't known for heavy lifting.
 
Aside from a bunch of dudes arguing about what is essentially a women's issue, I thought some here might be interested in an episode of Jon Ronson's Things Fell Apart podcast (all about the insanity of the current culture wars), where he posits that evangelical American churches mostly weren't overly concerned about abortion as a political issue, leaving it mostly as a conservative Catholic issue. That was until a documentary series about European art called How Should We Then Live? became a smash hit in American Evangelical circles, and it included some lengthy condemnations of abortion. From the mid-80's, it became a much bigger deal politically, and we end up where we are now.

Anyway, if anyone in interested in a Louis Theroux-esque series on the craziness of culture wars, here's the link:

 
SCOTUS Judges are nominated by the ruling party that was elected by the people at the time a sitting judge retires/dies... it amazes me how anytime something doesn't go the lefts way they want to cancel it and call it unfair/racist/misogynist...

The democrats could have made an amendment and solidified abortion rights and gay marriage rights at any point when they were in power over the last 50 years, but they didn't. They instead used the issues as political tools to fear monger people each election with the exact scenario that's happening now, just to get them to go out and vote for them.
Do you even know who Merrick Garland is? Pull your head out of the sand. Do you know what a filibuster is? do you understand how an amendment to the constitution occurs? Please do not answer that. We all know the answer.
 
Do you even know who Merrick Garland is? Pull your head out of the sand. Do you know what a filibuster is? do you understand how an amendment to the constitution occurs? Please do not answer that. We all know the answer.

So your saying the democrats couldn't get a 2/3 "majority" of the house and senate or of the Sates to support an abortion amendment in the last 50 years?

The majority voters in blue states get what they want and can have abortions anytime they like, the majority voters in red states get what they want and ban abortions after certain time frames or all together.

Trudeau has even offered to perform abortions for Americans on our tax dime...

At the end of the day they will still be avaliable if someone wants one.
 
Trudeau has even offered to perform abortions for Americans on our tax dime...
HUH??? Sauce?
We'll abort 'em... but they're gonna pay.
Why would we pay? A Canadian abortion is probably a DEAL if I know anything about US health care costs.
... maybe we could become THE holiday abortion destination. Fly into TO, see the Blue Jays/Raptors, see a play, abort your demon spawn, Home by 8 PM Sunday... We could sell that.
 
At the end of the day they will still be avaliable if someone wants one.
IF you can afford to travel to a state where abortions are available... and put your self up in that state for a couple of days if you get a surgical abortion... and PAY for the procedure because being from out of state and being a NON resident you don't qualify for any financial or medical assistance
If you have the means, an abortion is available to anyone... with means.
If you're poor: screw you. Here's a coat hanger.
Ivana Trump had no problem getting an abortion.
 
Ivana Trump had no problem getting an abortion.

Whataboutism? Or should she have not been allowed the choice? Personally I don't care if people get abortions, I'm not happy my tax dollars pay for them but there is a 1000 other things the govt wastes out tax money on too.

I am surprised in this day and age with the amount of STDs and crap going around people are still willing to bareback/get barebacked by strangers/people they don't intend to have children with. Talk about having zero forethought.
 

Back
Top Bottom