[BlutoSays]

[Pants-of-dog]

So, ten year old kids should be forced to carry the fetus from incestuous rape, because free speech means protecting the ability of the church to sneak around and influence judges.

[wat0n]

I'd like to see the source of those figures. Also, 2005 was 17 years ago. Mortality from delivery has gone up, partly due to changes in how maternal deaths are counted, partly due to demographics (women are getting pregnant later in life).

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog

If you want to engage in a debate I encourage you not to make childish and snarky comments in nothing more than attempt to needle others. It is insulting (as you intended) and not worthy of a response.

But more important that all that is the fact that such tactics are counterproductive.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

Let's take a look at the facts from an authoritative source from the United States Courts government website:

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-re ... d-religion

No, no, I understand perfectly what the Establishment Clause means. YOU on the other hand do not. As one can see above from the authoritative source I have provided, there can be no excessive entanglement between the state and religion. When the state provides a subsidy to churches in the form of a privileged (privilege is not a right) tax exemption and those churches start preaching politics from the pulpit, that violates the Establishment Clause of separation of church and state of the First Amendment. It excessively entangles the church and state.

There you have it. So, as one can see, I have a perfect understanding of the Establishment Clause. Taxing churches that enjoy a privileged tax exemption when they start preaching politics from the pulpit is perfectly legal and in line with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and should be required so as to not excessively entangle the church and state as per the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land.

[Mike12]

@Drlee

Let's take a look at the facts from an authoritative source from the United States Courts government website:



https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-re ... d-religion

No, no, I understand perfectly what the Establishment Clause means. YOU on the other hand do not. As one can see above from the authoritative source I have provided, there can be no excessive entanglement between the state and religion. When the state provides a subsidy to churches in the form of a privileged (privilege is not a right) tax exemption and those churches start preaching politics from the pulpit, that violates the Establishment Clause of separation of church and state of the First Amendment. It excessively entangles the church and state.

There you have it. So, as one can see, I have a perfect understanding of the Establishment Clause. Taxing churches that enjoy a privileged tax exemption when they start preaching politics from the pulpit is perfectly legal and in line with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and should be required so as to not excessively entangle the church and state as per the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land.

If they had established the english presbyterianism, the puritan pilgrim/presbyterianism in the declaration of independence or the constitution? You may meet up with a congregation with a priesthood of all believers to democratic civilization to the discerning of the Bible? Boy are you confused about Liberty, they told you in the US Civil War, and you Are confused about liberty. All the state has to do is look down while the world trade center towers burn and the pope is marching on congress. Through the state, its established. They like to stack online sources that way for terrorism intimidation, there's 1 billion catholics and 1 billion muslims. Have you seen 1 idiot with a host cracker anywhere? a single one?

What they did and continue in Britain is confusion over Nonconformists, so they can make a nonconformist. Rescue a puppy out of a burning chapel why don't you? Put a charity together in a community center. Tax the Irish until they break in revolution for Anglican superstructures? Taxes on the people read the conformist Church. As if anyone can make a nonconformist Presbyterian after Eisenhower, he visited a Mosque, he made the United Nations, read a dozen speeches but, and the statue of liberty, now where can we all point at the nonconformist Presbyterian? They're not on the "freedom" hymn 1 of 3 times?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

If you want to engage in a debate I encourage you not to make childish and snarky comments in nothing more than attempt to needle others. It is insulting (as you intended) and not worthy of a response.

But more important that all that is the fact that such tactics are counterproductive.

You were framing the debate in such a way that men on the religious right were the real victims in this.

I just wanted to remind you who is actually being targeted by this overturned case. It is a tragically true fact that cases like this poor girl are now a reality in the USA. Whether or not the men who secretly influenced the court to rule this way should have such speech protected is relatively unimportant compared to the horrible reality of these pregnant children impacted by this ruling.

[Drlee]

@Drlee

Let's take a look at the facts from an authoritative source from the United States Courts government website:



https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-re ... d-religion

No, no, I understand perfectly what the Establishment Clause means. YOU on the other hand do not. As one can see above from the authoritative source I have provided, there can be no excessive entanglement between the state and religion. When the state provides a subsidy to churches in the form of a privileged (privilege is not a right) tax exemption and those churches start preaching politics from the pulpit, that violates the Establishment Clause of separation of church and state of the First Amendment. It excessively entangles the church and state.

There you have it. So, as one can see, I have a perfect understanding of the Establishment Clause. Taxing churches that enjoy a privileged tax exemption when they start preaching politics from the pulpit is perfectly legal and in line with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and should be required so as to not excessively entangle the church and state as per the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land.

Obviously you do not understand. Read your citation again.

But I do understand that you do not believe in freedom of political speech depending on address. If the address is a church, you are against freedom of political speech. If the address is a Wall Street banking firm you not only support such speech you support the tax exemption the business gets for the speech.

Really think through what you are saying for a change. Seriously.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

I have presented solid evidence that backs my assertion, but you have presented none that backs your case. Present your evidence from an authoritative source, and we will debate further. Otherwise, this is checkmate for you, Drlee.

[Drlee]

@Drlee

I have presented solid evidence that backs my assertion, but you have presented none that backs your case. Present your evidence from an authoritative source, and we will debate further. Otherwise, this is checkmate for you, Drlee.

You've nothing of the sort. You misread your citation and come to erroneous conclusions.

But let me tell you what else you have done to further this debate.

1. You have let POD make a false assertion and then followed him down the rabbit hole.

2. You have grabbed on to an argument that is irrelevant to the subject at hand (church and state) and somehow contrived to believe that taxing churches is going to restore limited abortion rights. Or some such other convoluted logical conclusion.

3. By attacking free speech you have alienated some liberals and given ammunition to all conservatives.

4. By attacking religion you have alienated most religious people and driven them into the other camp. You will erroneously claim you haven't but almost every religious person reading your argument will believe you have.

5. You have loaded the opposition's gun to use against you.

Rather than refute your argument, let me tell you what a hard core conservative and pro life advocate would say about what you said and why you said it:

This is typical of the argument that baby killers make all of the time. Look at the liberal agenda here. He not only wants to kill babies right up to the moment of birth. That is clear. But he also wants to forward an extreme agenda in which your right to practice your religion is squashed or worse, decided by the government. He wants to force men of God, his anointed preachers, ministers and evangelists to preach a liberal agenda rather than God's Holy Word. He won't be happy until the Houses of God in this country are taxed out of existence and the practice of religion forced underground. What is next for this liberal? We have seen it before. Go after the celebration of the birth of our Savior? Force ministers to marry homosexuals in our Sacred churches? Force our Sunday schools to teach that promiscuity and birth control should be forced on our children? They will go so far as to make us take the signs off of our restrooms. I don't know about you but I don't want some "man" in the restroom with my 12 year old daughter. And to do this he will go after our God given right to own guns! The founders understood this. Once we are disarmed he will force a socialist agenda on our whole country! We men of God can't let this happen. We must stand up now and make sure that this agenda does not become the law of the land. I am not telling you who to vote for. That would be wrong. Everyone must make their choice. But when you go to the ballot box, say a prayer and vote for God first by selecting His candidates to stand in the way of this sickness and oppression.

Way to go sport. This shit writes itself. And this is why the conservative majority in many states will remain for a few more generations. And. Wherever they remain, abortion will be severely limited. But. If one avoids attacking religion, gun ownership, or casting the debate as a racial or gender issue, some limited abortion rights could well be retained or restored.

Now you and POD go on with your nattering. It will give you comfort and make you feel really smart. Totally ineffective but you will feel smart.

Oh. Just for fun. Read the Johnson Amendment. Just for fun.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee

Can you please clarify whatever it is that I got wrong?

Thanks.

[SpecialOlympian]

I don't understand why you thought this was relevant.

[Drlee]

@Drlee

Can you please clarify whatever it is that I got wrong?

Thanks.

I have done that repeatedly. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the facts in this case. You either do not understand how and why the court ruled as it did or you refuse to argue the facts of the case. Either way your arguments are irrelevant and therefor ineffective.

@Pants-of-dog said: You were framing the debate in such a way that men on the religious right were the real victims in this.

I did no such thing. Please quote where I did this.

I just wanted to remind you who is actually being targeted by this overturned case. It is a tragically true fact that cases like this poor girl are now a reality in the USA. Whether or not the men who secretly influenced the court to rule this way should have such speech protected is relatively unimportant compared to the horrible reality of these pregnant children impacted by this ruling.

There was no "secret" influence going on. That is something you made up. First of all if it was secret, how do you know? And secondly the decision and discussion have been done to death for decades. There was nothing new in this decision. It was as predictable as snow in the winter.

Roe V. Wade was a mess that granted rights to doctors while reserving none to pregnant women. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said of Roe:

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice. … It wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Pay attention POD. She is right.

She went on to say: Roe “ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”

And she said that it harmed moves in the states to liberalize their abortion laws on their own. She repeatedly said that Roe went "too far too fast".

Roe put the matter right back to the states with one flawed (convoluted) assertion. That was the women could have abortions not because of any right that they have but because of the right to privacy their doctor had. It was a horrible decision. The only good thing to come out of it was that women could get an abortion on demand. Good if you are one of the Americans who believe she ought to be able to do that. Bad if you are not.

I don't think anyone here remembers that before Roe V. Wade there were four states that allowed abortion on demand. And they did this on the issue of a woman's right to decide. But Roe changed this. For the worst.

So POD. Get with the program. Tell us how to fix the states.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have done that repeatedly. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the facts in this case. You either do not understand how and why the court ruled as it did or you refuse to argue the facts of the case. Either way your arguments are irrelevant and therefor ineffective.

This is vague.

I did no such thing. Please quote where I did this.

When you accused others of wanting to destroy freedom of speech.

There was no "secret" influence going on. That is something you made up. First of all if it was secret, how do you know? And secondly the decision and discussion have been done to death for decades. There was nothing new in this decision. It was as predictable as snow in the winter.

I posted the news article.

Roe V. Wade was a mess that granted rights to doctors while reserving none to pregnant women. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said of Roe:



Pay attention POD. She is right.



And she said that it harmed moves in the states to liberalize their abortion laws on their own. She repeatedly said that Roe went "too far too fast".

Roe put the matter right back to the states with one flawed (convoluted) assertion. That was the women could have abortions not because of any right that they have but because of the right to privacy their doctor had. It was a horrible decision. The only good thing to come out of it was that women could get an abortion on demand. Good if you are one of the Americans who believe she ought to be able to do that. Bad if you are not.

I don't think anyone here remembers that before Roe V. Wade there were four states that allowed abortion on demand. And they did this on the issue of a woman's right to decide. But Roe changed this. For the worst.

So POD. Get with the program. Tell us how to fix the states.

And this part is irrelevant to my claims.

Please read the posts and articles I present carefully. Thanks.

[Drlee]

You are not presenting an argument in good faith. You are just stuck on stupid. I have made my case. If anyone out there wants to argue the actual ruling let them come on. I am not going to spend anymore time following people who lack the intelligence or personal integrity to look at the facts down yet another series of rabbit holes.

Fix it in the states or leave the adults alone.

Start a new thread. Call it "Abortion whining thread".

[Pants-of-dog]

The number of doctors being threatened with legal action because of this overturning is already have an effect on the health of pregnant people.

[Drlee]

The number of doctors being threatened with legal action because of this overturning is already have an effect on the health of pregnant people women.

Source? You have verifiable numbers based on about two weeks of experience? Can't wait.

[Pants-of-dog]

The amicus brief by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for Dobbs vs Jackson has all the detailed evidence required for showing the negative impact this will have, and is already having, on the health of pregnant people.

Moreover, the fact that it is an amicus brief also shows that the SCOTUS was and is aware of this negative impact on life and health and chose to overturn this practice anyway.

[Drlee]

The amicus brief by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for Dobbs vs Jackson has all the detailed evidence required for showing the negative impact this will have, and is already having, on the health of pregnant people women.

Moreover, the fact that it is an amicus brief also shows that the SCOTUS was and is aware of this negative impact on life and health and chose to overturn this practice anyway.

Then, as you are constantly asking others to do, you may post your evidence. Please quote the salient parts.

While you are chasing your tail in an attempt to get this irrelevant information I will say to the rest of the folks here that your are wasting your time. This, even if true, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. The court did not rule on the health of the mother at all. Perhaps you just want to give the people who must overturn state laws in the wake of this decision, some ammunition to convince fence sitters.

In a point of personal privilege, lest I insult POD by ignoring his argument entirely I will offer this:

I agree with ACOG and other medical associations when they point out that pregnancy is dangerous to women and more dangerous to poor and rural women. (Though not particularly dangerous if one looks at the numbers.) You will get no argument from me though that there is risk in becoming pregnant. Whether this justifies the use of abortion as a means of birth control is another question altogether; particularly when one pushes the point in pregnancy closer and closer to normal delivery. I have full faith and confidence in the ability of state legislatures to weigh this consideration in the light of the demands of their constituencies. I see no reason for a national one-size-fits-all solution to this vague problem. As a believer in the electoral process, and noting along with Alito that women constitute the majority of registered voters in the country, am comfortable to leave the legislative process to the people through their elected representatives.

And I take this opinion in the face of the fact that pro life women and men in California will be deeply offended and disappointed in the laws of their state. Perhaps they would be happier in Mississippi.

[BlutoSays]

The amicus brief by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for Dobbs vs Jackson has all the detailed evidence required for showing the negative impact this will have, and is already having, on the health of pregnant people.

Moreover, the fact that it is an amicus brief also shows that the SCOTUS was and is aware of this negative impact on life and health and chose to overturn this practice anyway.

WRATGAS. Case is not about what the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists cites. It's immaterial to the case. This was not about ANY errant point you bring up. All have been addressed in painful detail

- - -


"VII

 We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

 The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."