***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[AEA18]

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.

 

[RustyShackleford]

My point is so what?

The legal arguments won't be based on religion.

If someone says I believe murder is wrong because God/ Allah whatever.

If doesn't mean that freedoms from religion applies. The legal arguments won't be based don that.

And if you go around telling people "im not in your little book club"

It just seems like pointlessly antagonistic and alienating

To many religions people who have complex views on this subject who could be potential allies.

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

 

[aepps20]

Dont' let dwalk31 drag y'all into a rabbit hole today

Just ignore him and keep it moving. His intellectual dishonesty is only second to his support of Republicans that happen to be Pedophiles. Glad Meth saved his posts.

 

[RustyShackleford]

And for all the folks who believe Biden actually cares about protecting abortions rights, here’s a nice video for you from an interview from the mid 2000’s. Fast forward to 16:40. Figured it would be a better look to post the original video that was posted 13 years ago verse the one posted recently by NewsMa which just shows the abortion portion lol.

Straight from Biden’s mouth “I do not view abortion as a choice or a right, I think it’s always a tragedy.”

Or was he just pandering to Texas voters since it was on a Texas talk show? Or just another typical fake, two faced politician who is now POTUS.

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

 

[osh kosh bosh]

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

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

 

[RustyShackleford]

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 Poore.

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

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 point

Like 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

 

[IATT]

. I’m a father,

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?

 

[dwalk31]

what does this have to do with other people?

and i would hope that my children would be able to make their own choices once they are old enough.. I shouldn’t need a law to obligate them to follow my religious views



do I have children or not?

and what does my religious views gotta do with other people?

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?

 

[dwalk31]

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?

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.

 

[IATT]

You can’t have a baby, so your views would impact your child’s mother—who is another person.

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

This has nothing to do with religion.

It doesn’t?

Do you support murder laws?

i do not support the law that saw Trayvon martin’s killing as just

 

[dwalk31]

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?

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.

 

[IATT]

Tons of choices are restricted by laws

since you want to mention being a father

what happens if your child is a gay?

what are your religious views on gay marriage?

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

And if you go around telling people "im not in your little book club"

It just seems like pointlessly antagonistic and alienating

The original tweet was directed toward conservatives…

This just seems ultra nitpicky

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?

 

[IATT]

What is wrong with being gay

 

[dwalk31]

since you want to mention being a father

what happens if your child is a gay?

what are your religious views on gay marriage?

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.

 

[gry60]

And if you go around telling people "im not in your little book club"

It just seems like pointlessly antagonistic and alienating

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.

 

[dwalk31]

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.

 

[IATT]

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.

What does your religion say on gay marriage?





this was said above:

as they clearly are going to attack gay marriage next

 

[IATT]

This is the stance of one Justice

who conveniently left out interracial marriage

 

[dwalk31]

What does your religion say on gay marriage?





this was said above:

I’m not sure my religion says anything about gay marriage. Even if it did, that wouldn’t impact my personal support of it.

 

[IATT]

I’m not sure my religion says anything about gay marriage. Even if it did, that wouldn’t impact my personal support of it.

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

 

[osh kosh bosh]

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?

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.

 

[dwalk31]

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

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]

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.

 

[gry60]

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.

His whole career is the definition of pulling the ladder behind you.