The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Tassman]

There is no constitution right for abortion, it was made up out of whole cloth. If you think otherwise show how the amendments the court referenced have even the slightest relationship to abortion.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

I just showed that opposition to abortion has a long history in Christian thinking. So you were wrong.

But I don't need that to know that killing unborn human beings is immoral.

Nonsense, he was forced by law to violate his conscious, his deeply held religious belief.. That is a violation of the FREE EXERCISE of religion clause. And no congressional LAW trumps Constitutional rights.

[seer]

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

Can you show me where the constitution says we have a right to privacy? And how that applies to the killing of a fellow human being? Oh wait, you can't!


Nonsense, you can go back to John Calvin. And the fact is, it was not really on the radar until the last 60 years or so since especially when the court overruled state law.


Would you rather we put them in jail with their criminal parents? And you have had no problem if these parents aborted these very children.




Actually no, that has been our history - the government not forcing one man to serve another - it is called liberty, freedom of association.

[Sparko]

I guess that means the constitution protects all murders as long as they are done in private.

[Tassman]

Can you show me where the constitution says we have a right to privacy?

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

And how that applies to the killing of a fellow human being? Oh wait, you can't!

Nonsense, you can go back to John Calvin. And the fact is, it was not really on the radar until the last 60 years or so since especially when the court overruled state law.

Nonsense! The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant congregation in the US) was utterly in indifferent to the notion of abortion until c. 50 years ago and initially praised Roe v Wade.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

Would you rather we put them in jail with their criminal parents? And you have had no problem if these parents aborted these very children.

Actually no, that has been our history - the government not forcing one man to serve another - it is called liberty, freedom of association.

US history also includes The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. Why do you want to discriminate against others anyway?

[seer]

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

You didn't answer the question Tass, because no such rights exist in the Constitution. A leftist court made it up out of whole cloth.


You mean a human fetus is not well, human?

Nonsense! The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant congregation in the US) was utterly in indifferent to the notion of abortion until c. 50 years ago and initially praised Roe v Wade.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

So? You can go back to the Church Fathers up to Calvin, there is a long history of being against abortion in the Church.



Like I said, you would have had no problem if these very children were killed in the womb. And again, should we have put those children in jail with their criminal parents?

US history also includes The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. Why do you want to discriminate against others anyway?

You don't know what I personally want or don't want to do - I just don't want the government forcing one man to serve another, especially if it violates his religious convictions. And the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, what you are supporting is NOT.

[Tassman]

You didn't answer the question Tass, because no such rights exist in the Constitution.

Yes they do as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

A leftist court made it up out of whole cloth.

You mean a human fetus is not well, human?

So? You can go back to the Church Fathers up to Calvin, there is a long history of being against abortion in the Church.

Not really, certainly not among the most virulent anti-abortion proponents of today, namely Evangelicals.

Like I said, you would have had no problem if these very children were killed in the womb. And again, should we have put those children in jail with their criminal parents?

You don't know what I personally want or don't want to do - I just don't want the government forcing one man to serve another, especially if it violates his religious convictions. And the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, what you are supporting is NOT.

[seer]

Yes they do as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

You mean as made up by Supreme Court.

I get it, in your world not all humans warrant human rights...

You make absolutely no sense - would would have had no problem if these very children were killed in the womb. So spare my your false outrage.


That is EXACTLY what is under attack when you force a person to act against his or her religious belief.

[Doug Shaver]

That is EXACTLY what is under attack when you force a person to act against his or her religious belief.

So, as long as someone can say, "My religion tells me I must do this," any law prohibiting whatever "this" is, is unconstitutional?

If not, how do you draw the line?

[Sparko]

So, as long as someone can say, "My religion tells me I must do this," any law prohibiting whatever "this" is, is unconstitutional?

If not, how do you draw the line?

Certainly not at making cakes.

[seer]

So, as long as someone can say, "My religion tells me I must do this," any law prohibiting whatever "this" is, is unconstitutional?

If not, how do you draw the line?

Physical harm, or the taking or harm of another's property.

[Tassman]

You mean as made up by Supreme Court.

I mean as the Supreme Court, doing it job by interpreting the Constitution, so ruled.

I get it, in your world not all humans warrant human rights...

Nor in your world until 50 years ago when Evangelicals decided to adopt the ludicrous notion that insensate fetuses were full persons deserving of protections equal those of viable human beings. OTOH the woman has no rights in your world.

You make absolutely no sense - would would have had no problem if these very children were killed in the womb. So spare my your false outrage.

I have a problem when children are forcefully removed from their mothers by a president pandering to his racist base.

That is EXACTLY what is under attack when you force a person to act against his or her religious belief.

So you believe that "Freedom of Religion" provides carte blanche to do whatever you want provided you justify it as religious belief. Is that what you believe?

[seer]

I have a problem when children are forcefully removed from their mothers by a president pandering to his racist base.

Yet those kids will be eventually reunited with their parents after the parents cases are disposed. There is no reuniting when you would have killed those very same children in the womb. So spare me the crocodile tears.

So you believe that "Freedom of Religion" provides carte blanche to do whatever you want provided you justify it as religious belief. Is that what you believe?

Yes as long as you don't physically harm someone or his property.

[Tassman]

Yet those kids will be eventually reunited with their parents after the parents cases are disposed. There is no reuniting when you would have killed those very same children in the womb. So spare me the crocodile tears.

The hypocrisy is yours. You emote about the termination of insensate fetuses but care little about the fetuses once they have emerged from the womb as children. A significant number of children separated from their mothers by Trump's heartless policy will never be reunited with them, because they have already been deported and their whereabouts are unknown.

Yes as long as you don't physically harm someone or his property.

[Doug Shaver]

how do you draw the line?

Physical harm, or the taking or harm of another's property.

That tells me where you draw it, not how.

[seer]

That tells me where you draw it, not how.

What do you want to know, what do you mean by how? Our general legal code I would assume.