McConnell, GOP Senate brace for Roy Moore

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Your problem is with the limitations of the Constitution itself.   Notwithstanding the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, there isn't a thing in the Constitution that protects the unborn.   You don't have the rights of a citizen or even of a human being until you're born.  A non-viable fetus is within the dominion and control of its mother, and beyond the protection of the Constitution.  Given that reality, the abortion right is part and parcel of the born citizen's liberty - derived from her natural and God-given rights of self-determination and privacy.    Put bluntly, the State cannot force a woman to reproduce, at least not without her consent. 

That said,  I share your opposition to abortion.  But the solution is persuasion, not coercion.   

How your argument goes away is by declaring a fetus 'non-viable'.

Exactly who makes that declaration?

[txradioguy]

The 14th amendment was a well meaning mess. (If we give it the benefit of the doubt.)   Part of it is clearly written and understandable,  and the rest of it is a large collection of gobbledygook with so many holes in it that you can drive a train through it.   


It has been used to justify homosexual acts,  banning prayer in schools,  creating citizenship for the children of illegal aliens,   re-writing the meaning of "natural born citizen",  as well as legalizing abortion and a whole host of other bullsh*t claims.   


It supposedly applies Federal restrictions to the states,   but I dare say that none of the states which ratified it,  (meaning those that had an actual choice to ratify it)  would have ever supported this claim at the time. 


It's another case of Liberal Federal Judges moving the goal posts on what a law means.   It's them putting their own personal ideology into the law,  and claiming that's what the law means,  and it is long past time we should have stopped tolerating it.

Spot on!

I forgot the most laughable use of the 14th in my lifetime...the justification for Obamacare.  Pelosi actually cited the 14th as justification.

[Bigun]

How your argument goes away is by declaring a fetus 'non-viable'.

Exactly who makes that declaration?

No fetus is unviable unless it is removed from it's  natural environment.

[Cyber Liberty]

No.

Are you sure?  That was only her second request to kill it.

[RoosGirl]

Are you sure?  That was only her second request to kill it.

Some people just don't have any stamina.    ^-^

[RAT Patrol]

When I was growing up,  my family was all different denominations,  and every family gathering everyone was going to "burn in hell"  according to everyone else.   

I learned to tune out my family's opinions of religion and get on with my life.   


It does not bother me that people express their religious opinions,  and I don't know why it should be a verboten subject.    I object to censorship more than I do unpopular or unpleasant opinions.

   People who are losing the debate often seek the plan B of silencing opposition, or at least eliminating them from the main discussion, thus labeling them "loser" without having to actually compete with their ideas.

[txradioguy]

Are you sure?  That was only her second request to kill it.

Absolutely positive.  That would be like you or me making the same kind of demand of the mods.  All of us would be told to pound sand.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your problem is with the limitations of the Constitution itself.   Notwithstanding the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, there isn't a thing in the Constitution that protects the unborn.

Words are a poor means of conveying concepts.   They are often not accurate enough to describe the principle that someone is attempting to convey.   One of the ways in which additional confusion occurs is when they are taken out of their original context.   

The Germans have a term called "zeitgeist."   It means  "Spirit of the times".   

The point here is that you cannot separate the concept written in words from the "zeitgeist"  in which it was created.   That is dishonest. 


You say that there is nothing in the constitution that protects the unborn.  What do you think the governments of States in 1787 would have done to a doctor performing an abortion on a woman?   They were hanging people for Homosexuality in those days,  and I can't imagine they would be okay with some man digging around in a woman's womb to cut out a baby.   

The common law of the time protected the unborn.    A woman pirate was to be hanged until it was announced that she was pregnant.  It was protecting the life of that unborn child that spared her own. 

The protection of the unborn is implicit in the constitution.    It is not because there was an intention to allow harm to come to the unborn that there are no words about it in the constitution,  it is because no one at the time would have conceived that any such thing would ever be allowed,  and so there was no need to explicitly write a prohibition against it.   

The idea of killing ones own child is not even comprehensible to the culture of 1787,  and to argue that they ever intended to allow such a thing is either terrible ignorance,  or a blatant lie. 

 

[Smokin Joe]

Your problem is with the limitations of the Constitution itself.   Notwithstanding the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, there isn't a thing in the Constitution that protects the unborn.   You don't have the rights of a citizen or even of a human being until you're born.  A non-viable fetus is within the dominion and control of its mother, and beyond the protection of the Constitution.  Given that reality, the abortion right is part and parcel of the born citizen's liberty - derived from her natural and God-given rights of self-determination and privacy.    Put bluntly, the State cannot force a woman to reproduce, at least not without her consent. 

That said,  I share your opposition to abortion.  But the solution is persuasion, not coercion.   

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No trial, no rights, just shredded, poisoned, induced to be expelled from their mothers and left to die. Fifty million and counting, incapable of committing a crime, and none has had their day in court.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Are you sure?  That was only her second request to kill it.

Actually @Cyber Liberty  I believe it was my first request.  (My other request was to start a religion forum or move this to members only)

Have you simply read through this thread?  It's gone from fridge to bizarre to near insane, fragmented.  And this is the second one in a week.

I visit several forums, paying attention to the political threads.  I've not run across anything like the threads we have that become entrenched in biblical interpretations and proselytizing.  Do you think they really belong in "Politics"?

[driftdiver]

Actually @Cyber Liberty  I believe it was my first request.  (My other request was to start a religion forum or move this to members only)

Have you simply read through this thread?  It's gone from fridge to bizarre to near insane, fragmented.  And this is the second one in a week.

I visit several forums, paying attention to the political threads.  I've not run across anything like the threads we have that become entrenched in biblical interpretations and proselytizing.  Do you think they really belong in "Politics"?

@Right_in_Virginia

So your one of those people that think peoples religion should impact their politics.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Words are a poor means of conveying concepts.   They are often not accurate enough to describe the principle that someone is attempting to convey.   One of the ways in which additional confusion occurs is when they are taken out of their original context.   

The Germans have a term called "zeitgeist."   It means  "Spirit of the times".   

The point here is that you cannot separate the concept written in words from the "zeitgeist"  in which it was created.   That is dishonest. 


You say that there is nothing in the constitution that protects the unborn.  What do you think the governments of States in 1787 would have done to a doctor performing an abortion on a woman?   They were hanging people for Homosexuality in those days,  and I can't imagine they would be okay with some man digging around in a woman's womb to cut out a baby.   

The common law of the time protected the unborn.    A woman pirate was to be hanged until it was announced that she was pregnant.  It was protecting the life of that unborn child that spared her own. 

The protection of the unborn is implicit in the constitution.    It is not because there was an intention to allow harm to come to the unborn that there are no words about it in the constitution,  it is because no one at the time would have conceived that any such thing would ever be allowed,  and so there was no need to explicitly write a prohibition against it.   

The idea of killing ones own child is not even comprehensible to the culture of 1787,  and to argue that they ever intended to allow such a thing is either terrible ignorance,  or a blatant lie. 

 

Thank you for those words.

Your gifts at stating an understanding with sound reasoning is great.  Wonder how you would do against Ted Cruz at a debate?

[Sanguine]

Thank you for those words.

Your gifts at stating an understanding with sound reasoning is great.  Wonder how you would do against Ted Cruz at a debate?

I don't see that he and Cruz would have too much to argue about!

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

So your one of those people that think peoples religion should impact their politics.

I am one of those people who thinks trying to codify one's religious interpretation of human sexual behavior into law is un-American.  I am one of those people who thinks hinting at eternal damnation if one disagrees with the Christian conservative Pharisees is insane.

I am one of those people who would prefer TBR not become the playground of a noisy few with a religious ax to grind under the auspices of political discussions.

@driftdiver

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for those words.

Your gifts at stating an understanding with sound reasoning is great.  Wonder how you would do against Ted Cruz at a debate?

I am decent when it comes to typing out my thoughts.   I am poor at extemporaneous verbal commentary.   Cruz would beat me handily.   :)   

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually @Cyber Liberty  I believe it was my first request.  (My other request was to start a religion forum or move this to members only)

Have you simply read through this thread?  It's gone from fridge to bizarre to near insane, fragmented.  And this is the second one in a week.

I visit several forums, paying attention to the political threads.  I've not run across anything like the threads we have that become entrenched in biblical interpretations and proselytizing.  Do you think they really belong in "Politics"?

You are correct.  The difference is, I am of the belief that moving the thread may be for the purpose of diminishing traffic, which is almost as bad as outright killing it.

The thread has developed and evolved, just as other threads have.  I'm not happy with the way some threads have moved, either.  Whether it gets moved or not is a decision by the owner and the Mods.  Have you clicked a Moderator Report button to draw your idea to their attention?

[driftdiver]

I am one of those people who thinks trying to codify one's religious interpretation of human sexual behavior into law is un-American.  I am one of those people who thinks hinting at eternal damnation if one disagrees with the Christian conservative Pharisees is insane.

I am one of those people who would prefer TBR not become the playground of a noisy few with a religious ax to grind under the auspices of political discussions.

@driftdiver

@Right_in_Virginia

So the religious talk should be restricted to ones home.  Got it.

So along with people's sexual behavior not bring codified.  Let's add sexual behavior with animals and kids.  I mean that's based on religion too.  Right?

Let's not forget murder, theft, slander, heck divorce shouldn't require a judge.  There's a lot we can clean up.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am one of those people who thinks trying to codify one's religious interpretation of human sexual behavior into law is un-American.

Let us talk for a moment about this idea of "equality."   This idea that " all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."   


Given the stratification of the social structure in Europe and elsewhere,  this idea of "equality"  between men seems uniquely American.   From whence did it emerge?   


Well it came from the philosophers of natural law,  such as Locke, Rutherford,  Wolfe,  Vattel,  and so forth.   To get to the point,  it was philosophy explicitly derived from Christianity.   


Christianity is the basis for this "equality" idea.  There is nothing like it in Islam,  which is one giant pecking order of status from the lowliest slave all the way up to Mohammed. 


This is the actual foundation of the nation,  and so therefore any discussion of what the nation should be or how it should behave needs to be contemplated in view of the light from which it emerged. 

[Bigun]

I don't see that he and Cruz would have too much to argue about!

 

[DiogenesLamp]

You are correct.  The difference is, I am of the belief that moving the thread may be for the purpose of diminishing traffic, which is almost as bad as outright killing it.

The thread has developed and evolved, just as other threads have.  I'm not happy with the way some threads have moved, either.  Whether it gets moved or not is a decision by the owner and the Mods.  Have you clicked a Moderator Report button to draw your idea to their attention?

Threads are moved for the sole purpose of starving them of oxygen.   

[aligncare]

Don't be mean.   Ted was fighting for us for years,  and I consider it ungrateful the way people ignored his accomplishments on our behalf.   


That being said,  I have become convinced that he could not possibly have won against the forces that were arrayed against us this election.    If the party hadn't picked Trump,  we would be bitching about President Hitlery.

Agreed. Sen. Cruz was missing the “it” factor. That intangible something that propels some candidates above the rest in a national campaign.

I guess that’s an admission that in the modern era the presidency has become something of a popularity or beauty contest.

And to a large degree it has, as Nixon/Kennedy showed. Audiences that watched them debate on TV thought Kennedy won; those that listened on the radio said Nixon won. Kennedy was perceived to be “prettier.”

[Bigun]

You are correct.  The difference is, I am of the belief that moving the thread may be for the purpose of diminishing traffic, which is almost as bad as outright killing it.

The thread has developed and evolved, just as other threads have.  I'm not happy with the way some threads have moved, either.  Whether it gets moved or not is a decision by the owner and the Mods.  Have you clicked a Moderator Report button to draw your idea to their attention?

And besides that, this thread is much more a discussion of political philosophy thn religion IMHO.

[Cyber Liberty]

And besides that, this thread is much more a discussion of political philosophy thn religion IMHO.

I agree with that, especially because this thread is about a potential US Senator, and not Joel Osteen.

[Smokin Joe]

I am one of those people who thinks trying to codify one's religious interpretation of human sexual behavior into law is un-American.  I am one of those people who thinks hinting at eternal damnation if one disagrees with the Christian conservative Pharisees is insane.

I am one of those people who would prefer TBR not become the playground of a noisy few with a religious ax to grind under the auspices of political discussions.

@driftdiver

Yet we do. No sex acts in public, for instance. Obscenity laws, for another. There is a time and place for everything but the group who identify themselves by their sexual proclivities have lost track of that completely as a group.

[truth_seeker]

I am one of those people who thinks trying to codify one's religious interpretation of human sexual behavior into law is un-American.  I am one of those people who thinks hinting at eternal damnation if one disagrees with the Christian conservative Pharisees is insane.

I am one of those people who would prefer TBR not become the playground of a noisy few with a religious ax to grind under the auspices of political discussions.

@driftdiver

This forum operated very well from 2009 until recently, with a consistent policy of avoiding religion.

That was in part a follow up from the horrific treatment given Mormons and Mormonism on the mothership, FR.

This joint is trending like that joint, at its worst. That is on the religion topic. In my view.

One of my ancestors was the rev. Hatevil Nutter:

Hatevil Nutter Was A Cruel Religious Hypocrite

Hatevil Nutter had had enough. An elder in Puritan church in Dover, N.H., he objected to the way the three Quaker women “beset” Congregationalist minister John Reyner when he worshiped in public. He didn’t like the way they bedeviled the Puritan minister when he was at home. He believed their teachings were wrong and their methods pernicious.

For six weeks in 1662, the women had held meetings and services at various homes around town. The Quaker women, my 11th great grandfather cruelly reasoned, had the liberty to go elsewhere, but they failed to exercise that liberty. Instead, they tried to spread their beliefs in Dover, preaching against professional ministers, restrictions on individual conscience, and the established customs of church-ruled settlements. Something had to be done.

Nutter, who filled the pulpit on occasion, sprung into action. He helped to get Dover citizens to sign a petition “humbly craving relief against the spreading & the wicked errors of the Quakers among them.” According to a Quaker historian, Hatevil (pronounced just like you think, Hate Evil) stirred up crown magistrate Captain Richard Walderne to issue an order to the constables of surrounding jurisdictions.

A little background may be necessary. Many of the Puritans who settled in New England in the 1660s did not believe in a separate church and state. They fled Europe, in many cases, because they believed the Church of England had strayed from its basic principles. They refused to tolerate dissent.

Walderne’s order required the constables “in the King’s name” to take “these vagabond Quakers, Ann Coleman, Mary Tomkins, and Alice Ambrose,” tie them fast to a cart’s tail, and “whip their naked backs, not exceeding ten stripes apiece on each of the them, in each town; and so to convey them from constable to constable, till they are out of this jurisdiction.”

The medieval-style punishment was severe, even by Colonial standards. The order called for whippings in at least 11 towns. It would require travel over 80 miles in bitterly cold weather. The first stop was Dover, to which Nutter had come from England 30 years before. The women were seized on a frigid winter day by constables John and Thomas Roberts. George Bishop recorded the events:
“Deputy Waldrom caused these women to be stripped naked from the middle upwards, and tied to a cart, and after awhile cruelly whipped them, whilst the priest stood and looked and laughed at it.”

Hatevil thought it was a real laugh-riot as well, according to Sewell, another witness. “All this whipping of the Quaker women, by the Constables (in front of the meeting-house) was in the presence of one Hate-Evil Nutwell (Nutter), a Ruling Elder, who stirred up the Constables (John and Thomas Roberts) to this wicked action, and so proved that he bore a wrong name (Hate Evil).”

According to Sewell’s History of the Quakers, the women were carried next to Hampton, where the constable wanted to whip the women with their clothes on. But they said, “‘set us free, or do according to thine order.’ He then spoke to a woman to take off their clothes. But she said she would not for all the world. Why, said he, then I’ll do it myself…So he stripped them, and then stood trembling whip in hand, and so he did the execution.

“Then he carried them to Salisbury through the dirt and the snow half the leg deep; and here they were whipped again. Indeed, their bodies were so torn, that if Providence had not watched over them, they might have been in danger of their lives.”

Once the women got to Salisbury, one Walter Barefoot convinced the constable to swear him in as a deputy. He received the women and the warrant and put a stop to the persecution. Dr. Barefoot dressed their wounds and returned them to the Maine side of the Piscataqua River.

Barefoot had the support of the town’s people, who were guided by the influential Major Robert Pike, one of the leaders of the lower Merrimac valley. According to history books, Pike stood far in advance of his time. He advocated religious freedom and opposed ecclesiastical authority. He even courageously wrote to the court at Salem, objecting to the witchcraft trials.

The Old Quaker Meeting House in Dover

Eventually, much to Nutter’s chagrin, the Quaker women returned to Dover and established a church. More than a third of Dover’s citizens eventually became Quakers.

snip

Nutter was by no means alone in his hatred of Quakers. Laws were passed during his time imposing fines on the master of any vessel who brought a Quaker into the colony. Quakers who managed to set foot in the Colonies were supposed to be sent immediately to a house of correction, where they would receive 20 stripes and be confined to hard labor.

A later act levied a 40-shilling fine against anyone who harbored a Quaker for one hour. After the first conviction, the offender, if a man, would lose one ear; and upon the third conviction, the other ear. Offending women would be whipped each time. After four convictions, offenders–men and women alike–would have their tongue bored through with a hot iron.

Many Quakers came to America to escape religious persecution in Europe. They found it in new forms once they arrived.



http://thompsongenealogy.com/2011/04/hatevil-nutter-was-a-cruel-religious-hypocrite/