Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Jeril]

You better watch yourself... she makes more than all of us.

You forgot the combined part.

[Seran]

Taking a very literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is generally not a great idea. There are religious and moral truths within scripture, but it’s not a history or law book.

I’m with you on separation of church and government, but understand that people are guided by their moral principles. For most people those principles have a religion as their foundation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Is it beyond your comprehension that an atheist/agnostic may have a moral objection to abortion? I know MSNBC tells us that every group fits in a nice little organized partisan box, but the real world is much more diverse.

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

[Seran]

Oddly, the only person that has used the Bible as a reference is your side of the argument.

I avoid using the Bible as a reference because I know cretins, like you, won't accept biblical arguments.

Besides, why would I use the bible when science overwhelmingly proves that abortion is the act of murdering a human being.

I get that you and your ilk needs to paint everyone as a religious zealot simply because every argument on the pro-baby killer side is void of logic and reason.

Calling someone a baby killer is the epitome of the religious zealotry as your only definition is motivated by your beliefs. The Old Testament and it's fire and brimstone teachings were the ONLY teachings for centuries and oral traditions continue those backwards beliefs, despite the new family friendly j/k we've changed approach of the New Testament.

I don't get how you and the Republicans can condemn religious fervor and dementia in the Muslim world, yet he completely supportive of the same toxic beliefs being used to control our citizens.

[Neveragain]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem.

So, kind of like killing a human being because your dogma says it's not a human being?

[Neveragain]

Calling someone a baby killer is the epitome of the religious zealotry

It's not zealotry when we know for a fact that a baby is being murdered, hence, baby killer is 100% accurate.

[Suppressed Poet]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

There is nothing written in the constitution or amendments that says a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy shall not be infringed. Roe vs Wade established a legal precedent on the basis of other amendments (acknowledged even by liberals as a weak argument), and that was subsequently overturned (leaked draft not official yet). You can object to / not like that decision, but there is no constitutional right to abortion and the process in the Supreme Court was totally legal. It’s up to the states and legislature now.

If you are so confident that 80% of the American public (or whatever number the news sources use) agree to a woman’s right to abortion, than surely in time Congress can create a new constitutional amendment to specifically name that as a right.

[Gelston]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

SCOTUS says it isn’t a Constitutional right. You can disagree, but you’re wrong.

[Seran]

So, kind of like killing a human being because your dogma says it's not a human being?

Because scientific evidence says it is not.

[Parkbandit]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

If this decision is indeed the majority, it's legal.

Sorry.

[Seran]

If you are so confident that 80% of the American public (or whatever number the news sources use) agree to a woman’s right to abortion, than surely in time Congress can create a new constitutional amendment to specifically name that as a right.

Oh, are we pretending that Congress does what their constituents want now? 2/3rds support increasing corporate taxes and those on the one percent, instead they were cut further. 4/5ths support a woman's right to choose, but the Supreme Court is undoing that. You act as if a constitutional amendment were easy to pass and foolishly overlook basic legislation has been pretty much at a standstill for over a decade.

Because there is a conservative majority and because Congress can technically (but not realistically) codify a woman's right to choose isn't grounds for infringing on equal rights.