- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,018 comments
- 1,697,889 views
- 29,704
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Failing that, he can become a cop and get filmed shooting someone when it wasn't the only remaining option for apprehension, and then the right will defend him until they're as blue in the face as the color of his uniform.
Man, it's fun predicting the outcome of hypothetical events. I don't know why I've been so critical of it.
/s
- 2,647
"Trump: "Get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."
McLaren
Premium
- 45,392
- Texas
Jesus Christ, he said the silent part out loud again.
- 6,054
- Simcoeace
I was listening to NPR this afternoon - an interview of Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List anti-abortion organization. She gave a very reasoned, articulate explanation of why the organization, after initially shunning then-candidate Trump, eventually formed an alliance with him based on his commitment to nominate anti-abortion SCOTUS justices, Their support was am important factor in Trump's 2016 win.. Their single minded focus on overthrowing Roe vs Wade is paying undreamt of dividends, as Trump is now in a position to place a third conservative judge on the bench within a single term - and this one will likely be very explicitly anti-abortion.
Dannenfelser was very candid is expressing the view that supporting Trump represented a "lesser evil" in pursuit of their greater good of abolishing abortion.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It continues to amaze me how many conservatives are solely fixated on abortion. Personally, I don't know where I stand on it since I've never had to deal with it. But when it comes to the government, they should absolutely not be involved in medical decisions. An abortion should be a discussion between a woman, potentially her partner, and her doctor and that's it. Even more than that, I'm not sure how any judge who's duty is to uphold the Constitution can realistically say "why yes, the Federal government should absolutely outlaw abortion!" That's a pretty big violation of the 10th Amendment.
Ultimately, if anyone is going to decide on the legality of aborition, it should be solely up to the states to decide.
With conservatives who are selling out to Trump over aborition it really makes me scratch my head. The only reason here in Utah Mormons support Trump at all is due to his (presumably fake) anti-abortion stance. Everything else about Trump goes against Mormon beliefs (well post 1975 Mormon beliefs).
Seriously, if you're religious enough to think that Jesus should determine the laws of America then why would you vote for a conservative in the first place? If you've ever read the Bible, even a little bit, it's easy to see that Jesus is a bleeding-heart liberal who thrives on socialism. It's like Jesus is the anti-republican.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,043
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
When abortion was illegal in Ireland but legal in the UK, Irishwomen used to come here en masse for terminations. Presumably anti abortionists don't want to give women in the US that potential escape route. They want to turn the clock back and drive abortion into the backstreets.
My cousin carried her foetus nearly to full term when a brain scan revealed no activity and that he would've been a vegetable. She forced herself to make the heartbreaking decision to terminate. When I shared this story with evangelicals on Twitter they called her a murderer. That's my skin in this game, and this is the kind of mindset that supports this.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,392
- Texas
I read a friend (very Christian, Hispanic) today share on his timeline that the sole reason he's voting for Trump is because of his anti-abortion stance, citing the recently passed bill about providing babies medical care if they survive abortion. He didn't care about Trump's other issues or the discussion if a woman should have that choice; abortion is a very anti-Christian view to him & he will make his bottom line voting for whoever agrees with that (even though Trump questionably does many things against what Christianity preaches). Weird hill to see one lay their morals on.
- 6,054
- Simcoeace
It seems to me that abortion has been the bedrock issue for the Religious Right for generations. Obviously some conservatives sincerely believe abortion is murder - not a "medical issue" - & so opposing it is the most important political position there is. That was certainly the position taken by Marjorie Dannenfelser. She & her organization will be pushing very hard to make sure Trump ... & the Senate ... carry through with the SCOTUS appointment asap.
As I understand it, Roe vs Wade set a constitutional framework for abortion access (correct me if I'm wrong). Marjorie Dannenfelser's strategy is to reverse Roe vs Wade protection at the SCOTUS level & then roll back access to abortion one state at a time by using all the political tools at their disposal in each individual state.
As far as Jesus is concerned, religious conservatives in the US clearly don't identify at all with "socialist Jesus" ... not at all. In driving through the US I come across various religious radio stations. Some of the things I've heard are really quite extraordinary: a large part of evangelical Christianity in the US seems little more than a mean spirited, white nationalist, right wing cult.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,043
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
They're something else. Most religious people are okay with abortion and LGBTQIA people if this AP poll is accurate.
https://apnews.com/8d3eb99934accc2ad795aca0183290a7
It looks like the GOP don't necessarily care either but just want to stay in office by any means necessary. That's why they court the evangelicals. I'm not sure this match was made in heaven, however.
Last edited:
- 7,765
- Yorkshire
- ScapeGoat4U
- WhippingBoy
Trump expands CRT ban, "...I’ve expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees."
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/trump-expands-ban-on-critical-race-theory-to-federal-contractors/
https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/trump-expands-ban-on-critical-race-theory-to-federal-contractors/
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
This prompted me to do some more digging since I'm not exactly up and up on Roe v. Wade. I guess the whole argument is around when a fetus becomes a "human" and thus when their human rights begin? There seem to be responses all over the board about it. I guess my hold up with it is why are people who are legal experts determining when life begins, which should be a medical and science based questioned? This is one of those things I have a legitimate difficult time understanding.
- 8,628
- Oklahoma
Leaving it up to the states means creating a situation where women will have to travel across state lines to get an abortion. That is not ideal or even feasible for some women.
I would say there is no way someone gets pregnant explicitly to have an abortion, but as soon as I say that, then I will be proven wrong.
Making it arbitrarily more difficult is incredibly harmful and unnecessarily dangerous. The better approach to abortion would be to teach proper sex education and the use of preventative measures against a pregnancy; this in turn would lower the number of abortions (it will be surprising to some that doing some "hard" work and using a bit of intelligence would result in a desired outcome). Anti-choice people burying their head in the sand and not acknowledging that are doing much more harm to their cause, the women they crusade against, and being petty and controlling, but I suppose that is the unsaid point.
They subscribe to the Gospel of Supply Side Jesus.
It should be based on medical and science information, but it is not. It is about making light of "sinners" and showing their peers how seriously they take their religion. It is about shaming women for not being "pure". It is about control over women.
- 8,628
- Oklahoma
- 29,704
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Thank you for that, because if anything has been made abundantly clear in these last crazy months, it's that the ****-heels are definitely not pro-life.
The thing is...I'm anti-abortion. I would much rather see a pregnancy carried until childbirth, and if a mother isn't prepared to continue caring for her child, then by all means allow someone else the opportunity. But I acknowledge that it isn't my decision to make. Even if I'm the one who fertilized the egg, that egg isn't inside of me and I'm not the one immediately saddled with pregnancy. Though I may have a stake, the decision to abort is not mine to make.
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
I don’t have an iron in the fire, but I have heard many rational arguments about the beginning of life re late term with viable fetus being murder.
It’s not all about sin and that for many people that I’ve seen explain their position.
There are consistent rational arguments against.
To me I pretty much can see being against a late term with viable fetus.
But then I think ok define viable...Then I can see where the arguments come.
Some say life begins at conception-and if you accept that premise their argument follows from that in a consistent fashion.
Personally to me I pretty much see it as don’t like it don’t do it...::::::shrug:::::
I don’t see a need to ridicule folks for beliefs about life if their arguments follows from their premise.
Obviously in cases of rape incest why in the heck wouldn’t it be allowed?
Wouldn’t that be like a form of torture ie forcing a woman who was raped to carry full term?
The only part of the arguments that I find interesting is defining at what point a fetus becomes a life, because it’s at that point killing it is murder imo.
Plus we already had a ruling on the matter.
As far as the rest of the America topic the big thing is RBG dying off.
Plus more protests.
- 86,676
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Oh, not entirely. Leifur Eirikssen's voyages to North America were well documented in (broadly) contemporary Icelandic literature, and there's no small suggestion that European sailors knew of it in general terms. In fact Columbus might have actually learned of "Vinland" while visiting Iceland some15 years before he sailed across the ocean blue.
The USA has celebrated Leif's discovery (or possibly rediscovery) of the North American continent for over a hundred years - there's a statue of him in Boston that dates back to 1887, and the USA gifted Iceland the statue that stands outside Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik in 1930...
This has been a known thing for a while. What wasn't really known was where they landed, though research around 60 years ago has resolved that as probably Newfoundland.
