[ckaihatsu]

No it was not inappropriate. Many Catholics are calling on the Church to ex-communicate him, and clarifying his position on abortion is needed as a result.

EWTN asked that valid question on behalf of many of their viewers, since many in their audience wanted them to ask it.

Yeah, whatevs -- it's called 'separation of church and state':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatio ... _and_state

[colliric]

Yeah, whatevs -- it's called 'separation of church and state':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatio ... _and_state

Lol. That's got absolutely NOTHING to do with a person being asked about Religious convictions, since the seperation of Church and State ACTUALLY refers ONLY to the institutions of organised religion and the political system. It does NOT at all refer to politicians acting on their religious beliefs and voting in accordance with their religious morality system.

Politicians are of course 100% free to act on their religious views concerning morality, and vote in accordance with them. Because that's DEMOCRACY in action!

What Texas did is called democracy:

"awww how dare they vote against access to something they in the majority don't believe in! How dare they represent the majority of their constituents who don't believe in Abortion rights!".

Democracy = Majority rules. If the majority are Christians, they rule. Deal with it, midwits!

[ckaihatsu]

Lol. That's got absolutely NOTHING to do with a person being asked about Religious convictions, since the seperation of Church and State ACTUALLY refers ONLY to the institutions of organised religion and the political system. It does NOT at all refer to politicians acting on their religious beliefs and voting in accordance with their religious morality system.

Politicians are of course 100% free to act on their religious views concerning morality, and vote in accordance with them. Because that's DEMOCRACY in action!

What Texas did is called democracy:

"awww how dare they vote against access to something they in the majority don't believe in! How dare they represent the majority of their constituents who don't believe in Abortion rights!".

Democracy = Majority rules. If the majority are Christians, they rule. Deal with it, midwits!

This is blatant political *opportunism* on your part -- as I just outlined, you're just trying to 'personalize' government policy, as though the president's own religiosity has anything to do with his political role in the nation-state.

According to your zany reasoning *everyone* would have their politics 'predetermined' by their religious beliefs, in a kind of modern 'predestination' that relieves everyone of having to think-about and address the material-political world out there, because they would just *automatically* 'embody' / personify their religion.

[Drlee]

@Drlee
Why do you consider this a women's issue? Many women are anti-abortion, just like many women were anti-ERA and anti-equality in general. Mothers all over the world instill patriarchal values in their daughters when they teach them how to dress, act and speak modestly.

All of what you said is true. And as I said, I have no problem with women wanting things to be done in a traditional, patriarchal way. I am, after all, one of the patriarchy. We have been running the world and telling the womenfolk how to behave ever since we found out we could control them physically. We have actually been quite moderate in our treatment of women the last few hundred years from a historical perspective and in the US we have been positively gentle.

It is a woman's issue because, as progressive as we would like to believe we are, women almost always get custody of children born out of wedlock (and in divorces even more often) and our laws/courts have simply reduced a man's responsibility to a dollar amount. Pay your child support and that woman will handle the rest thank you very much. I mean, you really aren't suggesting that men should physically raise children, are you? Without being widowed first? Right.

There is absolutely no doubt that women who prefer to be subservient to men are driving this issue through the device of abortion. They have a very good reason to feel that they should sumbit:

And whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. 18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.…

Esther 1:20
The edict the king issues will be heard throughout his vast kingdom--and so all women, from the least to the greatest, will honor their husbands."

1 Peter 3:1
Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your husbands, so that even if they refuse to believe the word, they will be won over without words by the behavior of their wives

So I will certainly not criticize them for following their faith. Do they not believe that this country was built on Biblical principles?

No. If women want to control their own bodies under the law then they must make that happen by banding together and enlisting the aid of men to the extent they can make a good case. So far, they are filing both miserably. Perhaps we (men) are to learn something from this.....I for one accept the responsibility to care for (correcting them when necessary) all of the women in my country. Noblesse oblige. When women (as a group) show that they can handle the responsibility for their own bodies and political future they can come to me and make their case. I think I would be inclined to support them. But I am not going to waste my time leading them to this victory either before they are ready or when it OBVIOUSLY does not matter much to enough of them.

[ckaihatsu]

All of what you said is true. And as I said, I have no problem with women wanting things to be done in a traditional, patriarchal way. I am, after all, one of the patriarchy. We have been running the world and telling the womenfolk how to behave ever since we found out we could control them physically. We have actually been quite moderate in our treatment of women the last few hundred years from a historical perspective and in the US we have been positively gentle.

It is a woman's issue because, as progressive as we would like to believe we are, women almost always get custody of children born out of wedlock (and in divorces even more often) and our laws/courts have simply reduced a man's responsibility to a dollar amount. Pay your child support and that woman will handle the rest thank you very much. I mean, you really aren't suggesting that men should physically raise children, are you? Without being widowed first? Right.

There is absolutely no doubt that women who prefer to be subservient to men are driving this issue through the device of abortion. They have a very good reason to feel that they should sumbit:







So I will certainly not criticize them for following their faith. Do they not believe that this country was built on Biblical principles?

No. If women want to control their own bodies under the law then they must make that happen by banding together and enlisting the aid of men to the extent they can make a good case. So far, they are filing both miserably. Perhaps we (men) are to learn something from this.....I for one accept the responsibility to care for (correcting them when necessary) all of the women in my country. Noblesse oblige. When women (as a group) show that they can handle the responsibility for their own bodies and political future they can come to me and make their case. I think I would be inclined to support them. But I am not going to waste my time leading them to this victory either before they are ready or when it OBVIOUSLY does not matter much to enough of them.

No, this country *wasn't* built on biblical principles:

The United States is often considered to be "constitutionally secular." The U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The extent of separation between the U.S. government and religion continues to be debated. While the U.S. is a self-described secular state, there are still references to religion in the pledge of allegiance.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -countries

---


What *you're* thinking of is a hellish dystopia:

Sex and occupation

In the world of The Handmaid's Tale, the sexes are strictly divided. Gilead's society values white women's reproductive commodities over those of other ethnicities. Women are categorized "hierarchically according to class status and reproductive capacity" as well as "metonymically colour-coded according to their function and their labour" (Kauffman 232). The Commander expresses his personal opinion that women are considered inferior to men, as the men are in a position where they have power to control society.

Women are segregated by clothing, as are men. With rare exception, men wear military or paramilitary uniforms. All classes of men and women are defined by the colours they wear, drawing on colour symbolism and psychology. All lower-status individuals are regulated by this dress code. All "non-persons" are banished to the "Colonies". Sterile, unmarried women are considered to be non-persons. Both men and women sent there wear grey dresses.

The women, particularly the handmaids, are stripped of their individual identities as they lack formal names, taking on their assigned commander's first name in most cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handm ... t_analysis

[Drlee]

@ckaihatsu

Do a quick google search for "sarcasm".

[snapdragon]

Women will still be having abortions, just as they always did. It’ll just be less safe.

I’m sure there’s a lot of money to be made selling mifepristone tablets on the black market.

And women with money can always access a safe abortion.

Follow the money. That’s what all this is about.

Shocking

[Pants-of-dog]

Such a rude bitch.

Celebrating rudeness and lack of manners.

Do you see your own hypocrisy here?

Because if not, then your posts are very amusing.

Also, this abortion law is an example of misogyny, while telling a reporter he does not get to ask three questions while other reporters have not asked any is not misandry at all.

[B0ycey]

Texas is turning purple, so it's very possible that in the next decade or two, this law will be repealed. In the meantime, lots of people are going to get stuck with babies they don't want, and lots of kids are going to go through a broken foster system.

Given the tune of the British Press today in particular, this issue seems to be widening the political divide and the rhetoric between parties in particular and as such seems to be the sewing the seeds for being a major player in the Mid-Terms. but if you say this has always been one of the two main voting issues, well who am I to argue with that given you live in Texas. However I found this quote rather bemusing in particular. An article I read today explains how this ruling will effect the poor and black community hardest in particular as they will find leaving their job to leave state hardest. The very demographic that is unlikely to vote Republican. This law ironically helps make the Democrats in the next few decades actually turn the state Blue!

[B0ycey]

Yes you left at the same time as us for the same exact reasons. Now can you tell that other user in that thread that said "it's a loss for Australia" how wrong he is please, it's entirely the US's fault.

I guess Operation High Road and those soldiers who left last week didn't count.

Besides, the UK was closing down operations in 2014 and they left Bastion in the same year. Just because the operation changes objectives doesn't mean we weren't involved in the war as is true with Australia. It is a sad affair when people like you seem to want to blame America for everything that went on there and then in the same breathe say how much we are lucky to live in the West.

[Rancid]

It would be so much better to really abuse children and deny them a post-birth existence at all, I think. Hell, we should help out rich people and sell them products from the aborted fetuses bodies, so that the older people can live even longer more important and convenient lives than others. And related to that, Abortion reduces the numbers of the poor and the genetically inferior, which makes everyone's lives happier; those who continue to live, that is.

There is no good solution to unwanted babies. Might as well not place that burden on the rest of society.

Separate from that, but related. The planet itself is overburdened with people anyway. We need a gradual population reduction to occur globally for our existence to remain sustainable anyway. Of course where we really need the population reduction is in the developing world and India/China since in the developed world, population is dropping. Still, we generally need a reduction in population across the board. We will also need to rely on automation and technology to help us deal with fewer people.

If I recall right, I think some scientist claim that about 3-ish billion people is about the sweet spot for global population. Would be good if we can find ways to slowly drop to that level. It will likely be education. As educated people have less kids. bringing it back to abortion in Texas, this law will make it harder for poor families to break the multi-generational cycle of being poor via education.

[Rancid]

Given the tune of the British Press today in particular, this issue seems to be widening the political divide and the rhetoric between parties in particular and as such seems to be the sewing the seeds for being a major player in the Mid-Terms. but if you say this has always been one of the two main voting issues, well who am I to argue with that given you live in Texas. However I found this quote rather bemusing in particular. An article I read today explains how this ruling will effect the poor and black community hardest in particular as they will find leaving their job to leave state hardest. The very demographic that is unlikely to vote Republican. This law ironically helps make the Democrats in the next few decades actually turn the state Blue!

Indeed, these laws affect the demographic that is less likely to vote for Republicans. The rhetoric from the democrats that this is an assault on poor and non-white certainly has truth. I think Republicans are banking on that fact that if they can keep you poor (by forcing you to keep babies you don't want), you are less likely to get educated, and thus less likely to organize against them. At the same time, as you said, this could backfire very easily as it makes it very clear who Republicans are trying to disadvantage in our society. THis could embolden and encourage organization and cooperation amongst the poor (va the democrat party)

Domestic hot topics every election cycle is always:

Guns
Abortion
Economy/China/Globalization
Terrorism

[B0ycey]

Indeed, these laws affect the demographic that is less likely to vote for Republicans. The rhetoric from the democrats that this is an assault on poor and non-white certainly has truth. I think Republicans are banking on that fact that if they can keep you poor (by forcing you to keep babies you don't want), you are less likely to get educated, and thus less likely to organize against them. At the same time, as you said, this could backfire very easily as it makes it very clear who Republicans are trying to disadvantage in our society.

What is the age demographic to political affiliation like in Texas? I only ask because in the UK it is the youth who are more Liberal and the older population who are more Conservative. See this is why I think UK politics, which in some way suffers the same problems with a political divide here (but no where near as extreme) as you guys, will ultimately resolve itself. Time. It might be true for America as well. Nonetheless what you cannot deny is if the poor migrant class is out breeding rich affluent Republicans, that will ultimately reshape America anyway which this policy will ultimately aide.

[Rancid]

What is the age demographic to political affiliation like in Texas? I only ask because in the UK it is the youth who are more Liberal and the older population who are more Conservative. See this is why I think UK politics, which in some way suffers the same problems with a political divide here (but no where near as extreme) as you guys, will ultimately resolve itself. Time. I might be true for America as well. But what you cannot deny is if the poor migrant class is out breeding rich affluent Republicans, that will ultimately reshape America anyway which this policy will ultimately aide.

Hard to say without data. The popular belief (which could be wrong) is the the young tend to be more liberal/left. I think all the assumptions/truths about voter demographics might have been put on its head with Trump.Almost feels like we need to wait a few more election cycles to understand what the new post-Trump normal is. My belief is that it's going to be more conservative among whites, but the counter balance/point is the fact that America is less white and more urban with every passing year.

Side note, I find it odd that white Americans would look at someone like me as not American (I've been told this at bars by southern gentlemen). I have a solidly strong American cultural outlook. Culturally speaking, I am more like a white guy in the mid west than a brown guy back in the Dominican Republic. It's a massive mistake in America to focus on race/color when it comes to politics. However, both Republicans and Democrats are addicted to it. IF we can break from that, and really see ourselves as Americans, this country would be fucking unstoppable. Even in the face of China.

[B0ycey]

@Rancid

Pretty much all Americans aren't inheritantly American. Unless you are a Native American you have to be inheritantly a migrant. And that is true for White Americans as well. Although your history is based on migration and as such should be embraced.

As for what can be described as a race war in America, I tend to think it is really a class war anyway. That is to say that historically black Americans were poor and unable to climb the class ladder in the past and as such are more demographically discriminated against now. That ultimately clauses casual racism and then divides cultures. In fact, rednecks if they had half a brain would know that actually their ills are not caused by migrants but the system that makes them poor. And I suspect the affluenet White electorate will look down just as hard with the white trailer trash as they do with migrants that cross the border given that.

[Rancid]

@Rancid

Pretty much all Americans aren't inheritantly American. Unless you are a Native American you have to be inheritantly a migrant. And that is true for White Americans as well. Although your history is based on migration and as such should be embraced.

As for what can be described as a race war in America, I tend to think it is really a class war anyway. That is to say that historically black Americans were poor and unable to climb the class ladder in the past and as such are more demographically discriminated against now. That ultimately clauses casual racism and then divides cultures. In fact, rednecks if they had half a brain would know that actually their ills are not caused by migrants but the system that makes them poor. And I suspect the affluenet White electorate will look down just as hard with the white trailer trash as they do with migrants that cross the border given that.

Agree, it is more fundamentally a class war. However, Democrats and Republicans want to keep us distracted with the race thing. It's easier to have all of us fighting each other, than to organize against the elites (which includes most democrats/republicans). So far, they have been very successful with this distraction. As my southern gentleman friend has illustrated to me.

[B0ycey]

Agree, it is more fundamentally a class war. However, Democrats and Republicans want to keep us distracted with the race thing. It's easier to have all of us fighting each other, than to organize against the elites (which includes most democrats/republicans). So far, they have been very successful with this distraction. As my southern gentleman friend has illustrated to me.

Actually, I completely agree with this. Ultimately the parties are identical in many aspects of the way they run and their policies. The only difference is who votes for the party. Republicans have to support these stupid things like six week abortions to please their voters and Democrats have to oppose them to please theirs. But the things that really matters to people like defence, education, health, cronyism, economics, tax cuts, and minimum wage, well you will find it difficult to distinguish between which party is more Conservative actually.

[late]

Well an opinion is about as subjective as one thing can be @late. And whether abortion should be legal or not is an opinion.

Good grief, are you serious?

One of the first things the first Supreme Court did was import English law. Now, we had just cut ties with them, so why do that? Because law is mostly about process and tradition.

It's like a building. We could have started over, but there was no point in reinventing the wheel.

Respecting the law is key, and what is lacking here. One of the ideas is stare decisis. In a case, I think it was earlier this year, the kooks on the court used procedure to undermine our tradition of separation of church and state.

This time they are using procedure to undermine Rule of Law, which is nuts. Not only are they using procedural excuses again, they just undermined stare decisis. Like I said, process and tradition, and they just attacked both. Again.

Even worse, they let the vigilante part of the law go unchallenged. The country had a long struggle to end things like vigilante lynchings, and this is another step towards barbarism.

Lastly, as I said before, religious arguments are expressly forbidden. Opposing abortion is about religion and power. If you are going to have Rule of Law, you have to play by the rules, and that is clearly not happening. We have had truly terrible courts before, the absurdly political court FDR had to deal with, the court that wrote the Dred Scott decision. I never imagined I would live to see that happen.

But it has.

[B0ycey]

@late

I don't know what that has to do with the term subjective, but the SCOTUS didn't make a ruling and left it open to repeal. Besides, this in my opinion is political and has absolutely nothing to do with abortions anyway. The SCOTUS is Republican and it is up to Democrat lawyers to appeal and bring forward why this is a federal and not state issue rather than ask for the SCOTUS to quash the law that clearly most on the justices support. Because ultimately Texas can claim they haven't actually made abortions illegal and only redetermined what is is to be classed as a viable entity... a heartbeat.

[late]

@late

I don't know what that has to do with the term subjective...

Your inability to respond on point has made that painfully clear.

It's not subjective.