-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
I laughed
I mean, I guess if we're turning back the clock on rights here ...
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No kidding! My husband and I were just musing yesterday about how this horrible one-term president, who couldn't even win the popular vote, somehow got to appoint three fricking judges to the Supreme Court who don't really seem to represent the will of the people at all. And they'll be in there for at least like another 20 years or something. It's nuts. And now half the country have just lost the rights to control their own bodies.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
I asked how you felt about the overturning of Roe and Casey.
The outcome of the overturning of Roe and Casey was that "the decision-making power [was given] back to the people through their elected officials" - as I said.
That is all that the overturning of Roe and Casey has done.
You said in response to my question, "Trump's last ditch to subvert democracy lingers on."
Therefore - logically - you are claiming that "the decision-making power [being given] back to the people through their elected officials" was "Trump's last ditch to subvert democracy".
Why do you believe that the Supreme Court overturning a bad decision so that States can democratically decide how they want to approach "abortion" is "subverting democracy"?
Circular reasoning. Special pleading. Which fallacy are you employing here?
How does letting the States democratically decide how they want to approach "abortion" forcing anything on anyone?
People on the Left liked Roe v Wade - not only because it got them what they wanted - but it was such a broad stroke that they never had to present any reasonable arguments.
The Left is not reasonable - so they don't like it when they are forced to argue the points of their agenda.
Now - they will need to argue for why they believe they should be able to kill their not-yet-born (and sometimes already born) children without any limits.
Don't worry - demagoguery will still rule in those heavily liberal States like California and New York - so there will still be a lot of mothers killing their children in the U.S. - just the way you like it.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Except it wasn't it was arbitrary appointments by one elected official, and it was unprecedented. Appointments to the supreme courts have a long tradition of being made to maintain a balance of views, especially on divisive issues.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Because research shows unequivocally that 6 out of ten Americans don't agree with the decision.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
None that I am aware of, but since it's your claim why don't you explain it and justify it.
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It's called a legal precedent, it has nothing to do with politics left or right, this is a risible piece of bias on your part. Odd how a decision by the supreme court is undemocratic when you don't get the result you want, but is championing democracy when you do. That sounds pretty Trumpian, and is probably why he had to peddle the catastrophic lies about election fraud when he lost the presidential election to Biden. I'm guessing you don't think the over 60 court cases that overturned his objections were democracy in action, several by the supreme court?
Now that is a circular reasoning fallacy. It's almost Orwellian, left bad, right good...dear oh dear. Facile is the best way to describe such reasoning.
Straw man fallacy, abortion does not involve children.
Straw man fallacy, like buses it seems.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
NOBODY is advocating for killing the "already born." Nobody. Give it up. Especially if you're going to claim that "the left" are the unreasonable ones here and then you just turn around and make stuff up.
You have yet to address bodily autonomy which is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of reproductive rights. I bet you enjoy your bodily autonomy, right?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
The point seems to be to use vapid rhetoric to ridicule those fighting for equal rights and bodily autonomy, so yes they have a point, the point is just meaningless rhetoric.
I guess this thread is for figuring out the stance of a particular religious group.
Nobody denies that those Christians who are anti-choice are biased. Because of their religious convictions.
But the play this game fairly. They play it straight, by saying what their beliefs are.
Who assures me that there are not closeted Satanists among the pro-choice politicians?
Whose motivations are not political but religious?
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Maybe we need a law that a president can only appoint one justice. If there are still holes, the people can vote on someone.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
You cannot make that determination without reading the decision.
I believe this observation to be irrelevant.
You claim to be an atheist - does that mean you cannot do your job without being motivated by a "strong link" to your belief that there is no God or gods?
"Abortion" was never a Constitutional right.
You can believe all you want that they voted the way they voted because of their religious affiliations - but it could also be that "abortion" laws were bad laws.
Should I doubt all the decisions you make?
Believing that you made them only because you do not believe in God or gods?
Trump believes that "abortion" is not a right and any laws upholding it are not well-reasoned.
He appointed Justices that were originalists.
I don't believe this happened.
I know that they both claimed that Roe v Wade was "precedent" that had been "reaffirmed" - and that they "accept the law" - but that was never "support" of any kind.
They didn't give an opinion one way or another.
She refused to claim that Roe was "super-precedent" when pressured to.
Originalists recognizing that Roe v Wade was bad law - legislation from the bench - and that the Constitution never mentions a right to "abortion"?
You should really read the decision - especially Thomas' opinion - it is well-reasoned and deeply argued.
No - unless you want to argue that everything is justified by that same Amendment.
"Abortion" was never a right - so it would make sernse that Constitutional originalists would want to put a stop to bad law.
Let's see where he takes it - he already did a number on gun rights and religious freedom - this Pride month was one for the history books.
Actually, I'd expect the decision's wording to
be entirely devoid any religious references.
The know how to craft a ruling using law.
So looking to surrounding information would
(& does) lead to that determination.
Then you'd miss the striking pattern that
shows great potential for religious bias.
You doubt me?
My professional motivations relate to gods as much as they do
to Voldemort, Muad' Dib, & Woody Woodpecker. Not at all.
It was from 1973 to 2022.
I assume you mean that it wasn't an enumerated right.
Thank you for permission to think as I do.
Join the club.
This suggests that he appointed particular justices
for the purpose of striking down RvW.
Not all originalists see things as I do, especially
regarding rights emerging after the Constitution,
& the amount of theocracy that's appropriate in
government.
But they are nonetheless aware of the function
of the 9th Amendment.
It was in the news I read.
That strikes me as artful concealment of true
beliefs in order to gain confirmation, & once
on SCOTUS, then strike it down.
I've long said that RvW was a weak ruling.
They dun proved me right.
I'll wager that his beliefs about gays having no right to marry,
& no right to contraceptives will be equally cromulent.
That's the beauty of the law....by careful selection & weighting
of the innumerable complexities of the law, one could prove
2 + Apple = Green
We see this in so many split decisions where these great
legal minds regularly reach opposite conclusions.
I don't claim "everything", which is a big & undefined thing.
It was a right from 1973 to 2022.
It might still be one in some states.
Last edited:
No SCOTUS justice banned abortion. They have just washed their hands of the matter, by basically saying: " if the state you live in bans abortion, take it out on your State representatives and not on the Federal institutions".
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You can believe the moon is made of cheese, the relevance is manifest.
Atheism isn't a belief, do you find you filter many of your decisions through your lack of belief in unicorns?
Not directy, but The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated".
Passing laws that force women's bodies to be used against their will seems oddly incongruous with the spirit of that.
The evidence shows opposition to abortion to be very among catholic demographics. So this isn't a subjective belief is it.
Do you make decisions based on not believing in mermaids?
Trump is one of the most cynical opportunistic politicians I have seen, so who knows what he really believes. However his belief here would be at odds with a 60% majority of Americans.
He appointed judges with a strong bias towards the religious right, and did so at an unprecedented rate. Upsetting any hope of a balance of opposing views.
That sounds like support to me?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No you made up a straw man, that had no relevance to my statement, your straw man claim is quoted above for clarity.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
And again then you're wrong, since the judges are not elected officials, and were appointed by just one elected official, who appointed judges with a heavy bias towards the religious right, and at an unprecedented rate, which upset the balance traditionally maintained in such appointments, or at least the rate of such appointments, and which demonstrably does not reflect the wishes of the majority of Americans, who are 60% in favour of abortions being legal in all or most cases.
To void the half century long constitutional right
is not the same as banning it. The states may
still treat it as a right, perhaps legislatively or
in state constituitons.