First you said abortion is murder because it’s “simply [your] view.” You disrespect the law of the land when you put your own “view” ahead of the law. Now, thanks to redtail23, you finally admit that legally, abortion is not murder.
Plus you admit now that you don’t even believe what your own bible, the text on which your religion is based, says. Again, you put your own “assumptions” ahead of the written word of God, just as you put your own “view” ahead of the law. If Genesis isn’t true, maybe the rest isn’t either, or do you just pick-and-choose what parts to spew unto everyone else?
You had to be browbeat into admitting you were wrong about the law and it appears that you really don’t respect the bible either. And you want to force your philosophy on the rest of America, when you don’t adhere to the law or your own religion? Wow. You’re just another ignorant conservative misogynistic jerk. And there’s absolutely nothing moral about that.
I don’t get why Bricker feels he can lecture people on Constitution 101, and yet suggest Lobohan has any ability to suppress Bricker’s First-Amendment rights.
Yes, you told us some. You more or less told us how he passed on to you his suspicion and contempt for lefty types, due to what they had done to his native land.
Did he teach you to be suspicious of atheists in cossacks, radical priests with their so-called “liberation theology”?
Did he explain to you how brave and noble men had stood firm against the leftists? How they defeated such insidious plots by way of glorious military actions against daunting odds, like La Matanza (The Massacre). Did he tell you how Communists corrupted and misled Archbishop Romero, forcing the noble leaders to distasteful but regrettably necessary action? How these same patriots firmly opposed the commando tactics of ferocious revolutionary nuns from the Ursine order? Dangerous bunch of Trotskyist revolutionaries, those Ursines. Perhaps not as bad as the Stalinist Dorothy Day and her Catholic Workers.
Mine told me that the Air Force bases we lived on were bastions of freedom and democracy. That all around the world, when the fearful and oppressed heard the news that the Americans were coming, they rejoiced that help was on the way and freedom would soon be at hand.
It is good that we can forgive our fathers. How else could we obey the commandment to honor them?
Of course! The Supreme Court also has an Article III right to weigh that legislation against the existing supreme law.
So far, they have found a right to abortion in the Constitution. A neat trick, in my view, but they found it. I readily acknowledge that’s the law.
But at the same time, they’ve acknowledged that the state has a legitimate interest in the fetus. And while they have not considered ultrasound directly, the Fifth Circuit has, and they squelched the challenge to Texas’ law as lacking a likelihood of success.
Which the Fifth Circuit also has an Article III right to do.
So, again, which right do you wish to erase? Because the sum total of the exercise of all these rights is that the ultrasound provision is constitutional.
As much as I disagree with Bricker on the subject of abortion, this is a ridiculous charge. There are plenty of non-Catholic folks who are pro-life. In fact, there are plenty of non-Christians who are pro-life. In fact, there are plenty, though admittedly not the same percentage, of non-believers who are pro-life.
Besides, where do you see Bricker advocating that birth control, adultery or blasphemy be made illegal?
Simply put, there is no objective way to determine when we become “human”. Science can guide us to an extent, but it can’t answer that question. I have my own views, but I can’t prove that they are right. Insisting that you (the generic you) have found the truth on this subject is bunk.
You missed the point. I didn’t say that regulating abortion is literally mandating Catholicism. It’s analogous in that it is the imposition of religion through the operation of law. My first draft said “Protestantism,” but then I decided that I didn’t want to bother with the question of a specific denomination.
When life begins is a philosophical question. One needn’t adhere to any particular religion to hold any position. Just because a large religion holds a certain opinion doesn’t mean that the question ceases being a philosophical one.
“Look, look at the violence inherent in the system! I’m being oppressed!” — Bricker, hysterical twat
That said, I’m not saying you don’t have the right to do it. I’m saying you are being an un-American clot of shit for doing it. You are being exactly what is wrong with the country, by trying to foist your religion’s tenets on everyone else.
You are a Hindu screaming how meat has to be outlawed here. You’re a Muslim screaming about how Sharia Law should be followed. You’re a Jew demanding universal circumcision. It’s within your right to do so, but it betrays the fact that you don’t really hold the ideals of America to any real esteem. You want to take our secular country (the country itself, not the citizens) and make Catholic laws to glorify your made-up God.
I’m talking about you, Bricker, old chum. If some shitty Rabbi thinks his Babylonian Storm God is pissed about fetus choppin’ he’s just a stupid and short sighted as you are.
What does one have to do with the other? You are trying to make this country into a Catholic wonderland. Rabbi Shit-for-brains is trying to make it into a Yahweh Fun park. Both of you are pissants, and that you form a coalition of the deluded, doesn’t mean you’re suddenly right.
As for pro-life atheists, well, there are goofballs in every camp. Their argument is sentimental, at least.
So, will you be acknowledging your lapse in reasoning there?
Not at all – your argument seems to be that my position on this issue is a result of my Catholicism, not any reasoning. To rebut that, I show you a Jewish pro-life organization, an islamic pro-life organization, and an atheist pro-life organization.
And your response is, “I’m talking about you, Bricker…” Never mind those other examples which inconveniently don’t follow from my argument!
This amounts to an ad hominem attack: you’re just saying this because you’re Catholic!
No. I’m saying it because in my view it’s the correct position to hold. And other non-Catholics agree. So it cannot be true that a pro-lifer’s argument derives from his Catholicism.
I’m saying that your view is based on your religion. The others of the big three are based on their religion. Choosing to inflict your religion’s views on society at large is poopy.
Get it?
As for atheists, I assume they think those widdle feet are just the cutest thing. Their position is stupid, but at least it isn’t trying to promote a particular religion.
It’s quite interesting how genuinely bad at thinking you are. If others (of different religions) hold similar views, you cannot be coming to that view based on your religion? How utterly stupid is that. It’s seriously baffling that you can be as smart as you are, yet as inept at the same time.
We religionists have strikingly similar views, and share our views with a group of atheists, but each of the three religionists arrived at their view because of religion. And the atheist is just swept from consideration.
I am telling you that this deduction doesn’t hold water. If it’s possible for a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist, et al., to reach the same conclusion, why are you confident that the conclusion is religiously-based?
Aren’t you supposed to be a member of the reality-based community?
So your position on abortion has nothing to do with the belief in a soul? If your beliefs are not religious in nature, then I absolve you, *mea culpa, vigin Mary fulla grits. *
I’m saying that there is a secular way into being pro-life, but it involves what I would consider an overly sentimental view of things. If your motivation for being pro-life is because of that, I’d say you’re wrong, but not an asshat for trying to marry the actions of others to your religious views.
And of course the Abrahamic religions would be similar. Islam and Christianity are only pastiches of Judaism. And practically every religion has a soul component.