Yes. We are to love everyone, but we don’t have to like anyone. Now, answer the question that was posed to you, for a change.
Biden Now Supports Ending Filibuster To Codify Roe v Wade
- Thread starter 2012Bearcat
- Start date
I believe in the Republican system of government we have.
Do I have much trust and have faith in the wisdom and intelligence of much my fellow men and women?
Nope.
I bet if you looked deep down into yourself…..you could admit you don’t either.
Does that mean I am advocating for power and control by only those that agree with me?
Of course not.
I really like the Parliamentarian system of the UK. I like that it typically results in a weaker executive head of state. I like that the Prime Minister is subject to a no confidence vote.
And I LOVE question time in Parliament being a regularly required thing. To this day, I watch it whenever I have the time.
At the same time, I’m not an advocate for changing our system to such or a monarchist or anything.
Might be. Absolutely. Absolutely. Back room politics is still going to go on even if there is no filibuster.
No. No.
I think you understand that you and I are discussing personal preferences/ideas/opinions upon which reasonable minds can disagree.
We may be the only two in this entire thread that do understand that.
Which is one of the reasons I have the position that I do in this thread. I much prefer doing nothing but the small things that can get through in our present system rather than wild, inconsistent streams of doing and undoing shit.
I’m an incrementalist. Some might opine me a fan of the “long con”, but meh….very few opinions about me belonging to others concern me much.
Last edited:
PS: Do you really believe that me calling you a “twit” is on the same level of “evil” as you advocating the killing of innocent unborn babies? Seriously? Every one of your posts is increasingly self-defeating.
Would this be codifying Roe v. Wade though?
Roe gave us the a trimester framework to govern all abortions regulations in the United States. Therefore, in the second and third trimester of a pregnancy, states could regulate and even prohibit abortions (viability, late second trimester and third trimester). When prohibition is allowed, exceptions must be in place for the health and life of the mother. Now, Casey did away with the trimester framework and also embraced an undue burden test, but I assume those who are calling for Roe to be codified are thinking of something alone the lines of a trimester framework.
What is wrong with this framework? Why can this not be the "middle" position? What is so "extreme" about this framework?
I disagree with your assertion that all Democrats want it wide open. This is not true at all. I have never supported such a position and I know many, many Democrats who don't support such a position. Heck, even Roe v. Wade was not wide open!
Just because Democrats support maintaining an exception for the health and life of the mother late in the pregnancy doesn't mean they all support abortions being "wide open" at all times.
Again, what is so extreme about the trimester framework that Roe laid out?
Yes. I can hold to my own personal religious beliefs on abortion and also hold that I shouldn't force my religious beliefs upon all Americans.
I simply gave you the teaching of Christ. If you are experiencing any level of uncomfortableness (or conviction) with what Jesus taught, that is something you need to take up with him in your own private prayer time.
We should always remember it was the religious leaders of His day aligned with an authoritarian government that crucified Jesus. Many of Jesus' teachings were directed at the abuses of religious leaders, the Pharisees. Jesus didn't have much use for them. He compared then to whitewashed tombs.
You didn’t answer the question. And your so-called religious beliefs are hypocritical. You are a cafeteria catholic.
Oh boy, so now people who defend the unborn are analogous to the mob that crucified Christ. Your brand of so called Christianity is an absolute joke.
I too believe in the republican system of government which means that I believe the ultimate source of authority resides with the people who elect representatives to serve their interest and protect/advance the common good. I also embrace the checks and balances among the three branches of government that we have and I also embrace the principle that certain rights of the people cannot be usurped (hence the original purpose of the Supreme Court and even the Executive Branch).
What I don't support is oligarchy parading around as a republicanism. I don't support republicanism being used as the excuse to embrace legislative procedures and actions that strip authority away from the people.
The American people elected the current Senate we have, their representatives. There is no need for some procedural rule to be in place to protect us from the will of the people, to protect us from the representatives taking votes on legislation with an up and down vote so the people can see where their representatives stand. Such votes help the people to rightly exercise their authority in elections.
I have looked deep down in myself regarding these issues. And I have decided that I would rather side with the people having the authority (with checks and balances among the branches of government) to control their government. I'm not scared of the people.
I answered your question with a yes and gave further explanation, just as you did.
Again, all I have done is quote Sacred Scriptures and referenced the teachings/actions of Christ. I'm sorry this "brand" of Christianity offends you so much.
The teachings of Christ have been offending religious people ever since they crucified Christ.
If this was the desired framework, then maybe you leftists shouldn't have filed for the 15-week Mississippi law to be overturned. 15 weeks is clearly in the 2nd trimester and thus by your statement, within a state's rights. But sometimes when you gamble, you can lose big.
Not all Dems want it wide open. Just the ones who get air time. Those who have more moderate positions are quieter than a Joe Biden pep rally.
You compared people of faith and religious leaders to the mob that crucified Jesus. That is just idiotic.
Are you naive, stupid or just wanting your way so bad you can not see the consequences? A one time exception turns into two then three and so on. Once the cat is out of the bag your not getting it back in.
What is wrong with forcing these idiots we have in Congress [both sides] to work with each other to represent the 80% of the country that is not a bat shot crazy radical?
I don’t want abortion to be illegal but I don’t want abortion legal till birth either. Isn’t there a happy medium that the majority can live with?
Your support of doing away with the filibuster creates instability, chaos and can lead to a very dangerous beginning.
But what was within a state's right during the second trimester according to Roe? States could regulate abortion if the regulations were reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman but not for protecting the fetus. Therefore, the Mississippi law would have been unconstitutional under Roe (and even Casey). It also would be illegal if Roe's trimester framework is codified.
Also, keep in mind, the Mississippi law banned abortions even in the case of rape and incest too.
You mean the ones who get air time on right-wing news sources like Fox News. Democrats who don't want it wide open regularly get air time on other media platforms. Right-wing propagandists though have a vested interest in misleading their followers into thinking all Democrats want it wide open and that is why they routinely only present such a viewpoint to their followers.
I'll ask you again though . . . what is so "extreme" about the trimester framework. Why can this not be the "middle" position?
Last edited:
You still think I watch FoxNews much? I watch the Nightly news on the prime news channel. Mostly David Muir and ABCNews. I can tell you that there isn't one moderate Dem on their nightly coverage (and abortion has been a nightly topic) talking about moderate solutions.
I never compared all people of faith to the religious leaders of Jesus' day. There are many people of faith, many followers of Jesus, who follow Jesus' teachings. They try their best to love God and love all people.
But we also have religious leaders and religious people today who embrace the spirit of the Pharisees. They do great harm to the message of Christ and build walls between Jesus and His beloved.
Right now, many Democrats are calling for Roe to be codified by Congress. There is outrage among a majority of Americans that Roe was overturned. That is what David Muir and ABC News will be reporting tonight on this issue.
So I ask you again, what is so "extreme" about the trimester framework? Why can this not be the "middle" position?
We should legalize murder, because anti-Murder is clearly a religious principle. Its even one of the 10 Commandments. And since religion is bad and inappropriate as a foundation for our country and government, we should have no laws based on religious principles. - signed, My_2cents.
We already have exceptions to the filibuster procedure though. Exceptions that Republicans embrace.
Because such a standard is absolutely insane. To say we can't pass any laws unless 80% of Americans support it isn't democracy nor does it allow us to address any of the problems that a majority of Americans want addressed! And heck, even when 80% of Americans do support legislation, the filibuster still remains in place for Senators who are bought and paid for to stop such legislation. Think of all the gun reforms, for example. Guess that is different huh?🙄
And Roe v. Wade never made all abortions legal till birth!
I believe there is a happy medium that the majority can live with. Roe v Wade. Poll after poll after poll tells you the American people want to live with Roe v. Wade. The trimester framework laid out in Roe is a happy medium, according to the majority of Americans.
So why do you keep fighting it? Why are you opposing suspending the filibuster to do that which a majority of Americans want?
I'll ask you again . . . what is so "extreme" about the trimester framework? Why can this not be the "middle" position?
What do you find extreme about letting individual states decide their own policies based on the attitudes of the people that live there? Oklahoma, for instance, is a deeply conservative population that has its own set of standards that are far different from those of California. Why should one state’s preference be foisted on the other?
I’ll answer that. Because it still enables the mother to kill her unborn child. And anyone who truly believes that life begins at conception finds that concept to be an abomination.
Indeed. What is so extreme about letting the individual states make those decisions? Ya know, like the majority rule that you were harping on?
Because the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy in this matter. That right though is not unlimited, as all are rights. Hence, the trimester framework. Hence, a middle ground. Not an extreme gound where we allow states to ban all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest.
You have even stated before on this board that you believe a woman should have a right to choose without government interference. That is your stated position.
Because as it relates to constitutional protected rights, states don't get the option to usurp those rights. Should a state be allowed to legalize slavery or racial discrimination again simply because it wants to?
Last edited:
But not every American believes life begins at conception or that all abortions are an "abomination." Heck, this wasn't even the position of the law (or the opinion of many Christians) during colonial America and when the Constitution was written!
We don't live in a theocracy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Then adjust the trimester framework to take into account for these changes. Even then, the Mississippi law would be illegal. btw, it hasn't changed that much.
My point stands. What is so "extreme" about the trimester framework? Why can this not be the "middle" position?
I’ve stated before on this board and I’ll state it again: I’m not in favor of any government entity encroaching on a woman’s decision. That is irrelevant to the question being asked. (As a side note I’ve noticed you frequently resort to diverting to irrelevancy.). Your contention that a right to abortion is found in the Constitution is a hotly debated topic. I understand you think it is so. There are countless people of great intellect and honor who disagree. IMO when something as contentious as abortion is involved it’s probably best to reduce the decision making to as small a group as possible. It may take generations of persuasive back and forth before a one-size-fits-all policy would be appropriate.
Because I understand that you’re a fvcking little phony hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. You’re political ideology is patently in contravention of the faith you claim. I get it, you don’t want to admit that you’re a hypocrite, but that’s exactly what you, Piglosi, Brandon, and your army of inauthentic Catholics are.
No it isn't. And I've explained to you numerous times how it isn't.
So all we are left with now from you is your hate, judgmental spirit, cussing, name calling, and your insistence that you and such behavior are the true reflections of Christ.
No, it is very relevant to the question being asked and the topic being discussed.
You and I agree on a woman's right to choose. So why in the world are you wasting your time challenging/debating me when we agree? Why aren't you challenging those on this board who support that which you claim to disagree with?
Hence the point of a middle ground.
Many (a strong majority actually), including YOU, believe that a woman has a right to choose. Yes, others disagree and want abortions completely outlawed. So find the middle ground! The middle ground isn't dismissing those who believe it is a right (such as yourself) in favor of giving what those who don't believe it is a right exactly what they want.
btw, don't kid yourself. The faux desire to return this issue to the states isn't going to end there for the anti-abortion crowd. Next, they will pass state laws to stop people from leaving their states to go to other states to obtain abortions. And they will eventually push for a nationwide abortion ban on all abortions.
Last edited:
I believe the best thing for our country is to end sleepy joe and his whole cabinet. Let Trump assume his legitimate place followed by two terms with Desantis at the helm. We need the healing and rebuilding to begin now, today. This clownshow we have in charge now are only depleting the life out of this country and the hardworking folks who made it great. Fvck you sleepy, fvck you pulosi, and fvck you kamalla. Oh, also any simpleton that slurps up their placenta. Sick motherfvckrs. 😁
A day or two ago I posted a link to a very long article/opinion by Naomi Wolf in which she argues the decision is actually an opportunity for what you call middle ground feminist pro-choicers. It was one of the most cogent, articulate, objective and thoughtful things I’ve read in a long time. You should step away from this board long enough to read it.
Here it is:
On Losing "Roe"
How Could this Possibly have Happened? Easy. Pro-Choice Movement, Look in the Mirror
naomiwolf.substack.com
Boy, you shift gears quickly don't you lol? I'll follow alone though.A day or two ago I posted a link to a very long article/opinion by Naomi Wolf in which she argues the decision is actually an opportunity for what you call middle ground feminist pro-choicers. It was one of the most cogent, articulate, objective and thoughtful things I’ve read in a long time. You should step away from this board long enough to read it.
Here it is:
On Losing "Roe"
How Could this Possibly have Happened? Easy. Pro-Choice Movement, Look in the Mirror
I've read the article. I also am very familiar with Naomi Wolf and her recent policy positions. With that said, I am not going to attack the source as so many right-wingers on this board do when they don't like what the source is saying. I will address her claims, and ask that you do the same.
Let's start with one of her first claims:
"Before I do, though, I warn that the Roe decision is being used as a pretext for a campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. This anti-SCOTUS campaign fits in as part of the larger war on our democratic institutions, about which I have been writing in The Bodies of Others, and elsewhere."
"Larger war on our democratic institutions."
Explain to me Dan how the current Supreme Court is a "democratic" institution?
