- 24,952
- 23,299
People kept stressing how important that election was and too many thought it was an exaggeration/joke or wanted to give the "outsider" a chance.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
People kept stressing how important that election was and too many thought it was an exaggeration/joke or wanted to give the "outsider" a chance.
- 64,966
- 196,177
Because this is a discussion forum and people are discussing the hypocrisy of a conservative view
Like no one here works for the Democratic Party, not one here is a Dem strategist
Like people won't coordinate their lives and rhetoric based on what is good for the Dems
This seems like the correct place to discuss this, given the context
- 64,966
- 196,177
You are not good at this
If a bill to reinstate Roe was put on his desk and Congress also added Justices to the court to protect it, he would sign that in an instant
And I say this not because of what is in his heart and mind, but because his caucus would demand it and it would be good politics
But that doesn't happen because they don't have the political power
Last edited:
- 34,115
- 29,458
But is it hypocritical if their stated legal rationale had no religious content?
Like I said if I think stealing is immoral because of the 10 commandments.
Or I think that we should have welfare because the bible tells me to take care of the poor.
Is it hypocritical to advance for a secular law that makes stealing illegal or increases the welfare state?
People have moral intuitions and they try to advance that via secular institutions.
So I just find the freedom from religion argument weird
When many laws have some theoretically religious motivation to them
- 64,966
- 196,177
Given what was said, I find this argument kinda pointless though
The original tweet was directed toward conservatives stop using faith because you don't consider the faith of everyone, just Christians. It is an implied argument against using religion
I don't think people are advocating for switching the framework of the argument from non-religious to strictly religious terms,
gry60
someone could (and he is right), but they are just pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservatives doing this. Seems like you even concede people are right on this pointLike I don't see anyone advocating to change the underlying logic, I don't see people switching out religion, I just see people are just pointing out the obvious
No one here is a Dem strategist
So you have an issue that people are discussing the obvious on a message board, why exactly?
This just seems ultra nitpicky
Last edited:
- 151,164
- 202,581
as a father, why would you want to restrict the potential choices of your child before they are even given an opportunity to make them?
what if your child doesn’t share the same religious views as you?
what if your child needs or wants an abortion for whatever reason?
as they clearly are going to attack gay marriage next, what if your child is gay?
if they decide to attack loving v Virginia on the same reasoning, what if your child finds love with someone of a different race?
- 12,008
- 3,294
What do you mean what does it have to do with other people? You can’t have a baby, so your views would impact your child’s mother—who is another person.
This has nothing to do with religion. This is about the point at which abortion is more like murder. Do you support murder laws?
- 12,008
- 3,294
Tons of choices are restricted by laws. The choice to drive over the speed limit, the choice to drink and drive, the choice to murder, etc.
These restrictions aren’t about religion. They deal with the point at which your choices impact the lives of others. The choice to get an abortion impacts the life of the baby. Just like those other restricted choices, there are exceptions. For instance, killing is justified for self defense, defense of others, etc. The same concept applies to abortion—should have restrictions with clear, practical exceptions.
- 151,164
- 202,581
i can speak with this person
she may not share my religious views
i shouldn’t be able to force her or anyone/everyone else to do anything
It doesn’t?
i do not support the law that saw Trayvon martin’s killing as just
- 12,008
- 3,294
What is wrong with being gay or finding love with someone of a different race?
Any attack on those rights is nonsensical. There’s no baby being killed as a result of gay marriage or finding love with someone of a different race.
- 151,164
- 202,581
since you want to mention being a father
what happens if your child is a gay?
what are your religious views on gay marriage?
- 1,393
- 2,974
My reading of the original post was that it was aimed at conservatives, as Rusty points out, and written by a conservative.
So maybe we shouldn’t argue too much about the alienating effects of the message?
- 151,164
- 202,581
- 12,008
- 3,294
I’d love and support my child if they were gay. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay. Do you?
You keep bringing up being gay as if there’s something wrong with being gay which is confusing to me.
- 14,955
- 36,300
It's a conservative Trump supporter who posted the picture, which is why it was in r/leopardsatemyface
While the legal rationale seems to be based on equating abortion to murder, the popular rationale against it (which, in my opinion is the real motive behind the legal push to ban abortion) is the fact that Christian religious doctrine forbids abortion.
We should also account for the fact that our laws include exceptions to justify killing other people centered around the principles of self-defense and protection of property. Women own their bodies, and the fetus requires the use of their bodies to survive early in the pregnancy. If the fetus is a full person (despite having no name, no citizenship, and no numerical value from the get-go), it should have ALL the rights and ALL the duties associated with personhood, including the duty to have the consent of the uterus owner before attaching itself to it
. The self-defense argument is self-explanatory: women whose lives are put in danger by the presence of a fetus should be able to terminate the pregnancy.The Right needed religious ideologues sitting in the courts in order to ignore these arguments. That's what makes the religious aspect of the decision to overturn RvW (and trigger abortion bans in many states) important.
- 12,008
- 3,294
This isn’t in the majority opinion. This is the stance of one Justice—who I personally disagree with on this issue.
That is a nuanced legal argument related to substantive due process based on an extremely literal reading of the text. As the majority opinion makes clear, those rights aren’t in question.
- 151,164
- 202,581
- 151,164
- 202,581
- 12,008
- 3,294
I’m not sure my religion says anything about gay marriage. Even if it did, that wouldn’t impact my personal support of it.
- 151,164
- 202,581
so when that option is removed for potentially your child and/or someone else you love because of the “religious views“ of others, what are you going to do?
the history on religious governance isnt hard to find
- 34,115
- 29,458
The alienation part was secondary effect.
My point the argument itself doesn't really work that well,
moral intuition leading to secular law describes basically every law,
so It doesn't even seem particularly hypocritical.
- 12,008
- 3,294
I wouldn’t support it. Just like I don’t support aborting babies post-first trimester, absent health concern of the mother, rape, and/or incest.
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,525
- 90,732
who conveniently left out interracial marriage
His view of the constitution is hilarious because if we go back to the original intent of the founding fathers he would be in chains somewhere and Ginny would be killed for sleeping with the help. He is also a sexual predator.
- 14,955
- 36,300
His whole career is the definition of pulling the ladder behind you.
Similar threads
