BearForce2 said:

---

Did the J6 Commission determine the identify of Scaffold Commander? I'm sure there are people in the DOJ who know. It wasn't FBI special agent Timmy.

---

Thanks for clearing up that controversy about Timothy Thibault that we were all losing sleep over. Maybe it was me. Those glasses look a lot like mine, though it's a common style. My ears weren't visible on 1/6 either and I doubt my voice prints would match megaphone guy. However, I have an alibi.

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

---

If only your argument were half as clever as you think it is. The difference between us is that I am consistent. YoU say you find Trump's behavior reprehensible but you support attempts to bury it under the rug. You don't support any meaningful congressional investigation and challenge the process constantly. You know what would happen under the sort of process you are calling for - the GOP would make it a farce and then call it a farce created by the Democrats. Then you would say Trump and the GOP are exonerated.

As for your inapplicable straw man, the important distinction is that I don't need to make inconsistent statements because I believe what I say. I support people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies. I don't support any of the government restrictions in place or contemplated. I don't think they are necessary and only serve to harm pregnant people and serve the theocracy. I understand a lot of other democrats are comfortable with restrictions in some form but I am not. I have been entirely consistent here and make no apologies. This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

---

I noticed that he sure conflates an awful lot.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

---

If only your argument were half as clever as you think it is. The difference between us is that I am consistent. YoU say you find Trump's behavior reprehensible but you support attempts to bury it under the rug. You don't support any meaningful congressional investigation and challenge the process constantly. You know what would happen under the sort of process you are calling for - the GOP would make it a farce and then call it a farce created by the Democrats. Then you would say Trump and the GOP are exonerated.

As for your inapplicable straw man, the important distinction is that I don't need to make inconsistent statements because I believe what I say. I support people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies. I don't support any of the government restrictions in place or contemplated. I don't think they are necessary and only serve to harm pregnant people and serve the theocracy. I understand a lot of other democrats are comfortable with restrictions in some form but I am not. I have been entirely consistent here and make no apologies. This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

---

I've said repeatedly I support a congressional investigation where both parties nominate their members - just like EVERY other congressional committee/investigation. The GOP would present their own arguments and evidence. What you call a "farce" is an adversarial proceedings consistent with our country's long standing norms and western traditions of justice. I support a political proceeding consistent with how all similar proceedings have worked. When the dems are in the minority, they create the same "farces" (e.g., Adam Schiff flat out lying about FISA/Steele when he was the minority chair of the Intelligence Committee is a fine example).

I'm willing to put up with the Adam Schiffs of the world creating a "farce" because I don't believe in show trials - by either party. You, on the other hand, are happy to have show trials in the tradition of McCarthyism. And I've never seen you call out Schiff (or anyone else on the left) who promoted the FISA/Steele lies.

You are so disingenuous that you don't acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You tell me that by supporting due process and adversarial proceedings (the principle I defend), "I'm really supporting trump." BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, your supporting people making "personal health decisions" (the principle you choose to defend) you really support killing babies. In each case, our respective positions may have unintended consequences (mine, arguably supporting those who defend Trump's actions, yours resulting in the killing of human lives). Either we're both responsible for those unintended consequences, or neither of us are. You pick.

And to be clear, I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side. And I want the Justice Department to prosecute Trump and others if and to the extent that would be supported by law and consistent with Justice Department standards/norms (which are supposed to be nonpartisan).

The difference between us is that I want consistent standards applied to both sides; you are quite happy to apply one standard to conservatives and another to your team. To this day, you can't unequivocally condemn political violence (or threats thereof) by progressives, including the 2020 riots. What we get from you is "But Trump" or "But Republicans".

And re inflation and gas prices, as I've previously posted, under your logic, supporting Biden (as you do) translates as supporting the consequences of his policies. Same simpleton thinking I described above.

It is amazing how some people here convince themselves that there are no honestly held principles in opposition with their own.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

---

If only your argument were half as clever as you think it is. The difference between us is that I am consistent. YoU say you find Trump's behavior reprehensible but you support attempts to bury it under the rug. You don't support any meaningful congressional investigation and challenge the process constantly. You know what would happen under the sort of process you are calling for - the GOP would make it a farce and then call it a farce created by the Democrats. Then you would say Trump and the GOP are exonerated.

As for your inapplicable straw man, the important distinction is that I don't need to make inconsistent statements because I believe what I say. I support people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies. I don't support any of the government restrictions in place or contemplated. I don't think they are necessary and only serve to harm pregnant people and serve the theocracy. I understand a lot of other democrats are comfortable with restrictions in some form but I am not. I have been entirely consistent here and make no apologies. This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

---

I've said repeatedly I support a congressional investigation where both parties nominate their members - just like EVERY other congressional committee/investigation. The GOP would present their own arguments and evidence. What you call a "farce" is an adversarial proceedings consistent with our country's long standing norms and western traditions of justice. I support a political proceeding consistent with how all similar proceedings have worked. When the dems are in the minority, they create the same "farces" (e.g., Adam Schiff flat out lying about FISA/Steele when he was the minority chair of the Intelligence Committee is a fine example).

I'm willing to put up with the Adam Schiffs of the world creating a "farce" because I don't believe in show trials - by either party. You, on the other hand, are happy to have show trials in the tradition of McCarthyism. And I've never seen you call out Schiff (or anyone else on the left) who promoted the FISA/Steele lies.

You are so disingenuous that you don't acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You tell me that by supporting due process and adversarial proceedings (the principle I defend), "I'm really supporting trump." BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, your supporting people making "personal health decisions" (the principle you choose to defend) you really support killing babies. In each case, our respective positions may have unintended consequences (mine, arguably supporting those who defend Trump's actions, yours resulting in the killing of human lives). Either we're both responsible for those unintended consequences, or neither of us are. You pick.

And to be clear, I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side. And I want the Justice Department to prosecute Trump and others if and to the extent that would be supported by law and consistent with Justice Department standards/norms (which are supposed to be nonpartisan).

The difference between us is that I want consistent standards applied to both sides; you are quite happy to apply one standard to conservatives and another to your team. To this day, you can't unequivocally condemn political violence (or threats thereof) by progressives, including the 2020 riots. What we get from you is "But Trump" or "But Republicans".

And re inflation and gas prices, as I've previously posted, under your logic, supporting Biden (as you do) translates as supporting the consequences of his policies. Same simpleton thinking I described above.

It is amazing how some people here convince themselves that there are no honestly held principles in opposition with their own.

---

Repeating your christian theocratic view that terminating pregnancies is killing babies won't make it true. I have no issue with people choosing to terminate their pregnancies. I do have a problem with killing children. Those two things are unrelated.

I also acknowledge that you have repeatedly called for the GOP to have an opportunity to present evidence in support of, and defense of, its role in the insurrection. And you very well know that it would become a farce. Everyone can connect the dots here.

As for calling out Schiff on the FISA BS, there has been a lot of BS on both sides that needs to be accounted for. It appears Schiff lied and/or mislead but Nunes was full of crap as well. I don't think either side has clean hands. I'm also not going to pretend like the FISA warrant (which was extended multiple times under Trump) even comes close to matching the materiality of the GOP attack on our peaceful transition of power.

As for 2020 riots, I've condemned violence multiple times. You are just dissembling because you know you have a problem with your defense of the insurrection. Try as you might to bury it, you won't be able to. Your GOP is very actively attempting to subvert our democracy, you know it's wrong, and you will continue to defend the GOP's role in it while also claiming you have a problem with Trump.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

---

If only your argument were half as clever as you think it is. The difference between us is that I am consistent. YoU say you find Trump's behavior reprehensible but you support attempts to bury it under the rug. You don't support any meaningful congressional investigation and challenge the process constantly. You know what would happen under the sort of process you are calling for - the GOP would make it a farce and then call it a farce created by the Democrats. Then you would say Trump and the GOP are exonerated.

As for your inapplicable straw man, the important distinction is that I don't need to make inconsistent statements because I believe what I say. I support people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies. I don't support any of the government restrictions in place or contemplated. I don't think they are necessary and only serve to harm pregnant people and serve the theocracy. I understand a lot of other democrats are comfortable with restrictions in some form but I am not. I have been entirely consistent here and make no apologies. This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

---

I've said repeatedly I support a congressional investigation where both parties nominate their members - just like EVERY other congressional committee/investigation. The GOP would present their own arguments and evidence. What you call a "farce" is an adversarial proceedings consistent with our country's long standing norms and western traditions of justice. I support a political proceeding consistent with how all similar proceedings have worked. When the dems are in the minority, they create the same "farces" (e.g., Adam Schiff flat out lying about FISA/Steele when he was the minority chair of the Intelligence Committee is a fine example).

I'm willing to put up with the Adam Schiffs of the world creating a "farce" because I don't believe in show trials - by either party. You, on the other hand, are happy to have show trials in the tradition of McCarthyism. And I've never seen you call out Schiff (or anyone else on the left) who promoted the FISA/Steele lies.

You are so disingenuous that you don't acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You tell me that by supporting due process and adversarial proceedings (the principle I defend), "I'm really supporting trump." BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, your supporting people making "personal health decisions" (the principle you choose to defend) you really support killing babies. In each case, our respective positions may have unintended consequences (mine, arguably supporting those who defend Trump's actions, yours resulting in the killing of human lives). Either we're both responsible for those unintended consequences, or neither of us are. You pick.

And to be clear, I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side. And I want the Justice Department to prosecute Trump and others if and to the extent that would be supported by law and consistent with Justice Department standards/norms (which are supposed to be nonpartisan).

The difference between us is that I want consistent standards applied to both sides; you are quite happy to apply one standard to conservatives and another to your team. To this day, you can't unequivocally condemn political violence (or threats thereof) by progressives, including the 2020 riots. What we get from you is "But Trump" or "But Republicans".

And re inflation and gas prices, as I've previously posted, under your logic, supporting Biden (as you do) translates as supporting the consequences of his policies. Same simpleton thinking I described above.

It is amazing how some people here convince themselves that there are no honestly held principles in opposition with their own.

---

Repeating your christian theocratic view that terminating pregnancies is killing babies won't make it true. I have no issue with people choosing to terminate their pregnancies. I do have a problem with killing children. Those two things are unrelated.

I also acknowledge that you have repeatedly called for the GOP to have an opportunity to present evidence in support of, and defense of, its role in the insurrection. And you very well know that it would become a farce. Everyone can connect the dots here.

As for calling out Schiff on the FISA BS, there has been a lot of BS on both sides that needs to be accounted for. It appears Schiff lied and/or mislead but Nunes was full of crap as well. I don't think either side has clean hands. I'm also not going to pretend like the FISA warrant (which was extended multiple times under Trump) even comes close to matching the materiality of the GOP attack on our peaceful transition of power.

As for 2020 riots, I've condemned violence multiple times. You are just dissembling because you know you have a problem with your defense of the insurrection. Try as you might to bury it, you won't be able to. Your GOP is very actively attempting to subvert our democracy, you know it's wrong, and you will continue to defend the GOP's role in it while also claiming you have a problem with Trump.

---

If you're going to die on the sword of claiming that killing viable fetuses isn't killing babies, then go for it. That viable fetuses are lives is not a Christian theocratic view - it is a scientific fact that you choose to ignore because its inconvenient for your preferred outcome. Even Roe acknowledged that.

It is quite amazing how you can't simply criticize your side (Schiff) without simultaneously attacking a republican. It is pathological for you.

In terms of "actively" subverting democracy, that his just empty rhetoric intended to characterize any opposition to your preferred policies. Again, quite transparent and sophomoric, but quite popular among the hyper partisans on this board (but not outside your bubble).

Holding a show trial/hearing subverts democracy and the rule of law. Fomenting protests and violence directed at public officials in private settings (restaurants and homes) subverts democracy, particularly when that is intended to change a pending judicial ruling. Rioting, vandalism, and looting as a part of political protest subvert democracy.

Having HRCs campaign manufacture a false narrative of Russian collusion and then using that as a cudgel during Trump's entire presidency (with the active help of congressional dems and the FBI), also subverts democracy. Ballot harvesting subverts democracy. Having Lois Lerner and Eric Holder not prosecuted for contempt of congress (or in the case of Lerner, her other violations of law) subverts democracy. Hillary deleting emails that were under subpoena subverts democracy. I could go on.

People opposing the peaceful transition transaction of power - most notably those acting on and before 1/6 - subverted democracy and violated perhaps the most important political norm in the US. It was wrong and reprehensible. That doesn't mean that all conservative/GOP policies unrelated to that are subversive.

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can't wait to hear how BG bends himself into a pretzel telling us this is fine but that he doesn't like Trump and doesn't defend his actions except all the time.

These are Trump’s handwritten edits to his January 7 statement.

He deleted any mention of DOJ prosecuting the rioters. And he he crossed out this message to those who committed the violence: “I want to be very clear, you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement.” pic.twitter.com/5ftNDSRYVM

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) July 25, 2022

---

As I've posted many times before - Trump's actions after the election and leading up to 1/6 were reprehensible. I'm not convinced they were criminal, but open to that possibility. No matter how often I post this, you dissemble and recast my objections to the lack of due process in the show trial hearings as support of Trump. It is not.

So I'll ask again, why do you support killing babies? Why do you support inflation and rising gas prices?

We can keep playing this game or you can stop with the dishonest arguments and willfully mischaracterizing what I've posted. Every time you do it, it shows how weak your arguments are. So carry on if you must.

---

If only your argument were half as clever as you think it is. The difference between us is that I am consistent. YoU say you find Trump's behavior reprehensible but you support attempts to bury it under the rug. You don't support any meaningful congressional investigation and challenge the process constantly. You know what would happen under the sort of process you are calling for - the GOP would make it a farce and then call it a farce created by the Democrats. Then you would say Trump and the GOP are exonerated.

As for your inapplicable straw man, the important distinction is that I don't need to make inconsistent statements because I believe what I say. I support people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies. I don't support any of the government restrictions in place or contemplated. I don't think they are necessary and only serve to harm pregnant people and serve the theocracy. I understand a lot of other democrats are comfortable with restrictions in some form but I am not. I have been entirely consistent here and make no apologies. This is different from your approach on Trump where you claim his actions are reprehensible yet vociferously attack any attempt to hold him accountable.

As for inflation and gas prices, I don't see where I've said anything relevant. What do those things have to do with your attempts to defend the GOP's role in the insurrection?

---

I've said repeatedly I support a congressional investigation where both parties nominate their members - just like EVERY other congressional committee/investigation. The GOP would present their own arguments and evidence. What you call a "farce" is an adversarial proceedings consistent with our country's long standing norms and western traditions of justice. I support a political proceeding consistent with how all similar proceedings have worked. When the dems are in the minority, they create the same "farces" (e.g., Adam Schiff flat out lying about FISA/Steele when he was the minority chair of the Intelligence Committee is a fine example).

I'm willing to put up with the Adam Schiffs of the world creating a "farce" because I don't believe in show trials - by either party. You, on the other hand, are happy to have show trials in the tradition of McCarthyism. And I've never seen you call out Schiff (or anyone else on the left) who promoted the FISA/Steele lies.

You are so disingenuous that you don't acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You tell me that by supporting due process and adversarial proceedings (the principle I defend), "I'm really supporting trump." BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, your supporting people making "personal health decisions" (the principle you choose to defend) you really support killing babies. In each case, our respective positions may have unintended consequences (mine, arguably supporting those who defend Trump's actions, yours resulting in the killing of human lives). Either we're both responsible for those unintended consequences, or neither of us are. You pick.

And to be clear, I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side. And I want the Justice Department to prosecute Trump and others if and to the extent that would be supported by law and consistent with Justice Department standards/norms (which are supposed to be nonpartisan).

The difference between us is that I want consistent standards applied to both sides; you are quite happy to apply one standard to conservatives and another to your team. To this day, you can't unequivocally condemn political violence (or threats thereof) by progressives, including the 2020 riots. What we get from you is "But Trump" or "But Republicans".

And re inflation and gas prices, as I've previously posted, under your logic, supporting Biden (as you do) translates as supporting the consequences of his policies. Same simpleton thinking I described above.

It is amazing how some people here convince themselves that there are no honestly held principles in opposition with their own.

---

Repeating your christian theocratic view that terminating pregnancies is killing babies won't make it true. I have no issue with people choosing to terminate their pregnancies. I do have a problem with killing children. Those two things are unrelated.

I also acknowledge that you have repeatedly called for the GOP to have an opportunity to present evidence in support of, and defense of, its role in the insurrection. And you very well know that it would become a farce. Everyone can connect the dots here.

As for calling out Schiff on the FISA BS, there has been a lot of BS on both sides that needs to be accounted for. It appears Schiff lied and/or mislead but Nunes was full of crap as well. I don't think either side has clean hands. I'm also not going to pretend like the FISA warrant (which was extended multiple times under Trump) even comes close to matching the materiality of the GOP attack on our peaceful transition of power.

As for 2020 riots, I've condemned violence multiple times. You are just dissembling because you know you have a problem with your defense of the insurrection. Try as you might to bury it, you won't be able to. Your GOP is very actively attempting to subvert our democracy, you know it's wrong, and you will continue to defend the GOP's role in it while also claiming you have a problem with Trump.

---

If you're going to die on the sword of claiming that killing viable fetuses isn't killing babies, then go for it. That viable fetuses are lives is not a Christian theocratic view - it is a scientific fact that you choose to ignore because its inconvenient for your preferred outcome. Even Roe acknowledged that.

It is quite amazing how you can't simply criticize your side (Schiff) without simultaneously attacking a republican. It is pathological for you.

In terms of "actively" subverting democracy, that his just empty rhetoric intended to characterize any opposition to your preferred policies. Again, quite transparent and sophomoric, but quite popular among the hyper partisans on this board (but not outside your bubble).

Holding a show trial/hearing subverts democracy and the rule of law. Fomenting protests and violence directed at public officials in private settings (restaurants and homes) subverts democracy, particularly when that is intended to change a pending judicial ruling. Rioting, vandalism, and looting as a part of political protest subvert democracy.

Having HRCs campaign manufacture a false narrative of Russian collusion and then using that as a cudgel during Trump's entire presidency (with the active help of congressional dems and the FBI), also subverts democracy. Ballot harvesting subverts democracy. Having Lois Lerner and Eric Holder not prosecuted for contempt of congress (or in the case of Lerner, her other violations of law) subverts democracy. Hillary deleting emails that were under subpoena subverts democracy. I could go on.

People opposing the peaceful transaction of power - most notably those acting on and before 1/6 - subverted democracy and violated perhaps the most important political norm in the US. It was wrong and reprehensible. That doesn't mean that all conservative/GOP policies unrelated to that are subversive.

---

I'm mainly responding to preserve this statement from future editing. If there's any merit to BearGoggle's claim that he is a rational, moderate Republican and not an extreme right winger, this should dispel that.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

BearGoggles said:

---

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

---

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?

BearForce2 said:

---

Something non-human doesn't eventually become human over time; whatever is human now must be human from the beginning. Human life begins at the beginning, not in the middle. Human life begins at conception.

---

It's actually stunning how stupid that argument is.

BearForce2 said:

---

Something non-human doesn't eventually become human over time; whatever is human now must be human from the beginning. Human life begins at the beginning, not in the middle. Human life begins at conception.

---

Sperm can also eventually become human. Are you committing mass murder whenever you jerk off?

BearForce2 said:

---

blungld said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Something non-human doesn't eventually become human over time; whatever is human now must be human from the beginning. Human life begins at the beginning, not in the middle. Human life begins at conception.

---

It's actually stunning how stupid that argument is.

---

You shouldn't be stunned actually. You can't win using reason or science, so you have to resort to silly games by changing definitions or avoiding certain words altogether. All this just to kill babies.

---

Just a few questions (that you won't answer because you never do because you don't actually have a thought through position).

1). Will you please define the words baby and fetus and zygote and sperm? What is their difference or are they all the same thing?

2) Is your definition of life on a medical basis? If so, define it and when it starts and when it ends.

3) Is your definition of life on a religious basis? If so, define when it starts and when it ends.

4) Is there a medical or legal definition of when life begins and when it ends? When is that, and do you agree?

5) Does every faith have the same definition of when life begins and when it ends? What are the differences and which is correct?

6) Is the mother alive? Is her life equal in value to the fetus within her, or more or less value? Are those values the same from the moment of conception to the moment of birth? Meaning, from the moment of conception when we have a one or two cell "organism" is that a human being, and does that one or two cells have the same value and rights as the mother?

7) On what LEGAL basis is their an argument that the state or another citizen can determine that a person have human tissue removed from their body? Can you also stop someone from getting other surgeries where human tissue is removed, or conversely force them to undergo a procedure like birth or donating a kidney?

8) Murder or manslaughter is defined by the killing of a human being. If a fetus can not sustain itself outside the mother (is not a human being or a separate living organism) and has no legally defined personhood, how can an abortion be murder or manslaughter?

9) Do you acknowledge that NO ONE wants to kill babies? Mothers and doctors do not abort a fetus that has reached maturity, except in an infinitesimally small number of cases where the mother's life is at risk or the child is nonviable and that is devastating for all involved and not some glib decision that needs to be legislated against rather than supported with empathy and counseling.

10) When a mother's body rejects a pregnancy "naturally" which happens a very high percentage of times, is that also an abortion and the killing of a baby? Is that a crime?

11) In the continuum of life you so ineloquently describe, is a corpse still human since it once was human? Are the elements human because every human grows and in so doing incorporates material from the world that becomes part of the body making it human? Rocks are human? Animals we eat are human? Air we breath is human? Are thoughts we have about having sex which could lead to being pregnant, are those human too?


I look forward to you avoiding all these questions and instead providing ether no response, a non sequitur, or a super funny meme. Maybe we will hit the jackpot and get all three? One thing is for sure, we won't get straightforward well-reasoned answers...but who knows, you might want to deliver a cogent surprise for us all?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth.

This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm not criticizng you for your honestly held beliefs - I support your right to live under the religious code you adhere to. But it's meaningless to me and shouldn't be forced upon others. I'm saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth. This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

---

I never said that my understanding of Christianity is copacetic with abortion. I don't believe that God is bound by time and space where he needs to think about before birth or after birth. I believe He knew me forever and loved me still not because I was born a certain way or earned His love. He loved me through all times because He chose to love me. With that belief, I am personally against abortion. Being OK with abortion on a personal matter would be taking over the throne in my life from God because it is easier or more convenient. But that is different from me forcing others to conform to my faith when they don't believe and have no capacity to believe. So, I am not seeking to force non-believers to obey. I would rather there weren't so much desire for maximizing one's worldly pleasures and greed that leads to things like adultery and unwanted pregnancy, but I am under no illusion that we will ourselves create a sinless world here or that this world is not broken by our desire to live our lives as gods of our own worlds. For example, I may have personal views on fornication, adultery, etc., but I have no desire to make my views into worldly laws.

I am guessing you have your own moral values from something you worship. For some, they worship power, worldly approvals, etc. You probably cannot pinpoint where they came from or why you even have them. You could appeal to basic utilitarian philosophy, but I would suspect that doesn't align with all your beliefs or why your beliefs are better than nihilism or the Superman theory. But trying to narrow your disagreement into your bigotry against a religion you barely recognize is clearly arrogance. Maybe familiarize yourself with different cultures and religion instead of judging your entire views on slanted opinion pieces like some racists do with clips of crime committed by certain members of the community. Open your mind.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth. This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

---

I never said that my understanding of Christianity is copacetic with abortion. I don't believe that God is bound by time and space where he needs to think about before birth or after birth. I believe He knew me forever and loved me still not because I was born a certain way or earned His love. He loved me through all times because He chose to love me. With that belief, I am personally against abortion. Being OK with abortion on a personal matter would be taking over the throne in my life from God because it is easier or more convenient. But that is different from me forcing others to conform to my faith when they don't believe and have no capacity to believe. So, I am not seeking to force non-believers to obey. I would rather there weren't so much desire for maximizing one's worldly pleasures and greed that leads to things like adultery and unwanted pregnancy, but I am under no illusion that we will ourselves create a sinless world here or that this world is not broken by our desire to live our lives as gods of our own worlds. For example, I may have personal views on fornication, adultery, etc., but I have no desire to make my views into worldly laws.

I am guessing you have your own moral values from something you worship. For some, they worship power, worldly approvals, etc. You probably cannot pinpoint where they came from or why you even have them. You could appeal to basic utilitarian philosophy, but I would suspect that doesn't align with all your beliefs or why your beliefs are better than nihilism or the Superman theory. But trying to narrow your disagreement into your bigotry against a religion you barely recognize is clearly arrogance. Maybe familiarize yourself with different cultures and religion instead of judging your entire views on slanted opinion pieces like some racists do with clips of crime committed by certain members of the community. Open your mind.

---

This reads like bigotry against people who don't worship your religion. The last paragraph in particular is narrow-minded and cringe-worthy. I don't need to study Christianity to determine I don't want it imposed on me and the US constitution protects me from Christian bigotry.

Judaism is far more copacetic with abortion than Christianity, as you've described it, but I don't think we should force people to live under Jewish law. As I recall from the story of Passover, God killed all the first born sons of Egyptians but I don't think we should kill first born sons because it happened in a religious story. We don't live in a Jewish theocracy and we shouldn't live in a Christian one. If people want to live under Muslim Sharia, they can move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If people want to live under a Jewish theocracy they can move to Israel. If they want to live under a Christian theocracy, they can go make a new country, but the constitution clearly is meant to prevent the US from being one.

What I also know is that the forced birth laws in this country are driven by Christianity and that as a consequence pregnant people are suffering and will continue to suffer. Stories continue to pour in of pregnant people unable to receive medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other risks to the lives of pregnant people which cannot be medically addressed because theocrats passed laws (some ambiguously) which are causing health care professionals to have to choose between losing their licenses (or going to jail) or treating their patients. Nothing you can say about your faith is going to change that.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth. This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

---

I never said that my understanding of Christianity is copacetic with abortion. I don't believe that God is bound by time and space where he needs to think about before birth or after birth. I believe He knew me forever and loved me still not because I was born a certain way or earned His love. He loved me through all times because He chose to love me. With that belief, I am personally against abortion. Being OK with abortion on a personal matter would be taking over the throne in my life from God because it is easier or more convenient. But that is different from me forcing others to conform to my faith when they don't believe and have no capacity to believe. So, I am not seeking to force non-believers to obey. I would rather there weren't so much desire for maximizing one's worldly pleasures and greed that leads to things like adultery and unwanted pregnancy, but I am under no illusion that we will ourselves create a sinless world here or that this world is not broken by our desire to live our lives as gods of our own worlds. For example, I may have personal views on fornication, adultery, etc., but I have no desire to make my views into worldly laws.

I am guessing you have your own moral values from something you worship. For some, they worship power, worldly approvals, etc. You probably cannot pinpoint where they came from or why you even have them. You could appeal to basic utilitarian philosophy, but I would suspect that doesn't align with all your beliefs or why your beliefs are better than nihilism or the Superman theory. But trying to narrow your disagreement into your bigotry against a religion you barely recognize is clearly arrogance. Maybe familiarize yourself with different cultures and religion instead of judging your entire views on slanted opinion pieces like some racists do with clips of crime committed by certain members of the community. Open your mind.

---

This reads like bigotry against people who don't worship your religion. The last paragraph in particular is narrow-minded and cringe-worthy. I don't need to study Christianity to determine I don't want it imposed on me and the US constitution protects me from Christian bigotry.

Judaism is far more copacetic with abortion than Christianity, as you've described it, but I don't think we should force people to live under Jewish law. As I recall from the story of Passover, God killed all the first born sons of Egyptians but I don't think we should kill first born sons because it happened in a religious story. We don't live in a Jewish theocracy and we shouldn't live in a Christian one. If people want to live under Muslim Sharia, they can move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If people want to live under a Jewish theocracy they can move to Israel. If they want to live under a Christian theocracy, they can go make a new country, but the constitution clearly is meant to prevent the US from being one.

What I also know is that the forced birth laws in this country are driven by Christianity and that as a consequence pregnant people are suffering and will continue to suffer. Stories continue to pour in of pregnant people unable to receive medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other risks to the lives of pregnant people which cannot be medically addressed because theocrats passed laws (some ambiguously) which are causing health care professionals to have to choose between losing their licenses (or going to jail) or treating their patients. Nothing you can say about your faith is going to change that.

---

First of all, the first paragraph is a deflection. Me stating that you may want to understand what Christianity is before claiming it is something it is not and then judging it and the people who believe it is not bigotry against non-believers just like asking Trump to understand the Mexican community before judging incorrectly the entire ethnic group is not being racist against non-Mexicans. How is that bigotry?

The second paragraph is odd. You even get Passover wrong. The Passover was from the Pharaoh choosing not to believe in any of Moses' prior miracles and hardening his heart against freeing the Jews from slavery. It wasn't a continuous law of killing all first born other than those of Jewish faith. What does that have to do with killing first born now? Celebrating Passover and believing in the Jewish faith doesn't mean you think all first borns should be killed now

And are those who are pro-life saying they are only pro-life because they are Christian? That doesn't even connect with non-Christians who are pro-life based on their experience with parenthood. That also doesn't connect with Christian leaders in the Democratic party who are pro-choice

Yes, there are things that are in the law that overlap with religion. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie under oath, etc. Does that mean we live a Christian, Muslim or Jewish Sharia now?

My personal beliefs on abortion comes from my religion as well as my experience as a parent. Non-Christians can believe the same just like non-Christians can believe murder is wrong. I mean, where does your belief that murder is wrong and should be illegalized come from? From a utilitarian view that making that illegal will lead to the most social good? Is that the basis for all your beliefs or is that from your Jewish beliefs? If something is proven to be helpful to the underprivileged but add little to overall utilitarian good, would you be against it, such as helping the homeless? Where do you think your views on abortion come from and why do you think you specifically weigh more the factors favoring abortion vs the counterweight? Are you imposing what you worship (maybe political party, feeling like you align with what you think is socially acceptable, etc) to others?

Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth. This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

---

I never said that my understanding of Christianity is copacetic with abortion. I don't believe that God is bound by time and space where he needs to think about before birth or after birth. I believe He knew me forever and loved me still not because I was born a certain way or earned His love. He loved me through all times because He chose to love me. With that belief, I am personally against abortion. Being OK with abortion on a personal matter would be taking over the throne in my life from God because it is easier or more convenient. But that is different from me forcing others to conform to my faith when they don't believe and have no capacity to believe. So, I am not seeking to force non-believers to obey. I would rather there weren't so much desire for maximizing one's worldly pleasures and greed that leads to things like adultery and unwanted pregnancy, but I am under no illusion that we will ourselves create a sinless world here or that this world is not broken by our desire to live our lives as gods of our own worlds. For example, I may have personal views on fornication, adultery, etc., but I have no desire to make my views into worldly laws.

I am guessing you have your own moral values from something you worship. For some, they worship power, worldly approvals, etc. You probably cannot pinpoint where they came from or why you even have them. You could appeal to basic utilitarian philosophy, but I would suspect that doesn't align with all your beliefs or why your beliefs are better than nihilism or the Superman theory. But trying to narrow your disagreement into your bigotry against a religion you barely recognize is clearly arrogance. Maybe familiarize yourself with different cultures and religion instead of judging your entire views on slanted opinion pieces like some racists do with clips of crime committed by certain members of the community. Open your mind.

---

This reads like bigotry against people who don't worship your religion. The last paragraph in particular is narrow-minded and cringe-worthy. I don't need to study Christianity to determine I don't want it imposed on me and the US constitution protects me from Christian bigotry.

Judaism is far more copacetic with abortion than Christianity, as you've described it, but I don't think we should force people to live under Jewish law. As I recall from the story of Passover, God killed all the first born sons of Egyptians but I don't think we should kill first born sons because it happened in a religious story. We don't live in a Jewish theocracy and we shouldn't live in a Christian one. If people want to live under Muslim Sharia, they can move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If people want to live under a Jewish theocracy they can move to Israel. If they want to live under a Christian theocracy, they can go make a new country, but the constitution clearly is meant to prevent the US from being one.

What I also know is that the forced birth laws in this country are driven by Christianity and that as a consequence pregnant people are suffering and will continue to suffer. Stories continue to pour in of pregnant people unable to receive medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other risks to the lives of pregnant people which cannot be medically addressed because theocrats passed laws (some ambiguously) which are causing health care professionals to have to choose between losing their licenses (or going to jail) or treating their patients. Nothing you can say about your faith is going to change that.

---

First of all, the first paragraph is a deflection. Me stating that you may want to understand what Christianity is before claiming it is something it is not and then judging it and the people who believe it is not bigotry against non-believers just like asking Trump to understand the Mexican community before judging incorrectly the entire ethnic group is not being racist against non-Mexicans. How is that bigotry?

The second paragraph is odd. You even get Passover wrong. The Passover was from the Pharaoh choosing not to believe in any of Moses' prior miracles and hardening his heart against freeing the Jews from slavery. It wasn't a continuous law of killing all first born other than those of Jewish faith. What does that have to do with killing first born now? Celebrating Passover and believing in the Jewish faith doesn't mean you think all first borns should be killed now

And are those who are pro-life saying they are only pro-life because they are Christian? That doesn't even connect with non-Christians who are pro-life based on their experience with parenthood. That also doesn't connect with Christian leaders in the Democratic party who are pro-choice

Yes, there are things that are in the law that overlap with religion. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie under oath, etc. Does that mean we live a Christian, Muslim or Jewish Sharia now?

My personal beliefs on abortion comes from my religion as well as my experience as a parent. Non-Christians can believe the same just like non-Christians can believe murder is wrong. I mean, where does your belief that murder is wrong and should be illegalized come from? From a utilitarian view that making that illegal will lead to the most social good? Is that the basis for all your beliefs or is that from your Jewish beliefs? If something is proven to be helpful to the underprivileged but add little to overall utilitarian good, would you be against it, such as helping the homeless? Where do you think your views on abortion come from and why do you think you specifically weigh more the factors favoring abortion vs the counterweight? Are you imposing what you worship (maybe political party, feeling like you align with what you think is socially acceptable, etc) to others?

Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.

---

An unsurprising response. First, I didn't get Passover wrong. You are criticizing things I didn't say. What I said was accurate to the story. That's also relatively unimportant to this topic.

Second - the fact that some Christians don't believe that our government should be a theocracy doesn't negate what is happening. I have no issue with people of faith who aren't looking to impose their religious zeal on others. The 6 radical clerics on the Supreme Court were hand picked because they agree with religious Christian conservatives and will rule accordingly, as we've seen. You may object to calling them Christian because they are devout Catholics and not Protestant or whatever, but we didn't accidentally wind up with this group on the court. They were out there for this purpose.

Bonus points for your claim that there is a "bias against that religion here". There is no bias against Christianity in this country. The constitution imposes limitations on the Government's establishment of religion, which is being tested by GOP Christians all over this country. It's not being tested by Muslims or Jewish people or anyone else. Acknowledging that isn't bias or bigotry. That is just speaking plainly about what is happening and why it's happening.

As for your questions about what I worship and your insinuating that it could be something non-religious, perhaps you need to study other cultures to understand that not everyone aligns their life around "worship". Having views isn't necessarily "worship". I don't consider anything I believe to rise to the level of worship and don't think "worship" should be a factor in creating laws that limit freedoms in our country.

I'm not expecting us to see eye to eye on this topic overall, but I'm honestly surprised that you can't readily acknowledge that the Dobbs decision was rooted in Christianity. We all know what happened.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I stopped reading after you continued to pretend that fetuses are babies. Your Christian religion may hold that view, I have no idea, but it has no bearing on me.

What we can probably both agree is that due to the Christian religious beliefs held by you and many others, poor pregnant woman with unviable fetuses will be forced to give birth at peril to their lives. That's the impact of the Dobbs decision and the various laws in ****hole states and we are already seeing the impact. It's sad but it's the foreseeable consequence of what you advocate for.

---

We can also agree that your disregard of a living thing will result in viable fetuses being killed.

And if you don't like the laws in "****hole" states, don't live there and/or lobby to change those laws. Don't ask a court to make up rights and force your view on other people. And for the record, lots of people regard where you live as a ****hole state - LOTS.

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

You're smart enough to know there's a reasoned opposing view to your own. You just can't overcome your hate and partisanship to have a reasoned debate.

---

The Christian theocracy appreciates your patronage whether you acknowledge it or not. They love Jewish people who support radical Christian clerics.

And lol to your bolded statements. Maybe if you pretend that keeping the government out of the decision is "killing" some idiot may believe it. If you cared about prenatal and neonatal health and viability you would support healthcare for fetuses and help reduce infant and maternal mortality. Except we both know you can't say nice that would require you to stop supporting the morally bankrupt GOP.

Roe was wrong because it gave ****hole states and fundamentalist Christians too much power over women where none was needed. I trust pregnant people to make their own healthcare decisions but you are a typical big government theocratic conservative who thinks faceless bureaucrats should be able to decide everything for them while not providing any assistance.

---

Why does this have to be Christian? This is also Muslim and almost every other traditional religion. But it even goes beyond religion.

What I am seeing here is just people stating non-provable opinion as facts through twisting the meanings of words and writing 10 pages demand for answers that are intended only to score points.

Who cares how we define "human," "baby," or "viability"? It all comes down to an unknowable and undefinable belief in when life starts. Non-Christians can believe that life starts at conception or at any time before birth. "Religious" folks like Biden and Pelosi can believe that life only starts at birth. Depending on where you fall in that "spectrum" of belief on when life starts, you will have different feelings about abortion. Clearly if you believed that life, as you view life (i.e., something worth protecting), starts earlier than you believe now, you would potentially end up being against abortion. If you don't believe life starts until after birth, completely understandable that the "women's" (using that term traditionally) rights are more important.

All of the non-sensical back and forth and demand for definition are idiotic and sideshow to the only question that matters on a personal level. When does life start? That is something that science and dogma cannot define or answer. It is a personal belief. All science can do is give you data, but cannot say when life starts without assuming as the premise the conclusion (e.g., brain activity, viability outside the womb - none of which people agree universally are the threshold for life).

I can tell you hundreds of times what I believe as the start of life. That won't change your view. You telling me your version won't change my view. Trying to besmirch an entire group or engage in religious bigotry or hyperbole does nothing other than allow you to vent or claim your moral superiority. Quite honestly, I am not moved by anything any of the moral outrage expressed by any bigots here. The only thing that moves me from a policy (even if not from a personal) perspective are that people will engage in abortion no matter what and that making it illegal will only lead to more death.

---

We don't have a Muslim theocracy in the US, we have a Christian one. If we had a Muslim one, I would be criticizing it exactly the same way. I don't think Christian Sharia is preferable to Muslim Sharia. I prefer no Sharia. You call it bigotry but I don't see how that's the case. We both agree that Christians think pregnant people should be prevented from terminating pregnancies. Are you bigoted for believing that, or is it just me?

And I agree with you that that the discussion of when "life" begins isn't a fruitful discussion.

If we look at the facts, we can also agree that the new forced birth laws are going to end pregnant people's lives. We're already seeing the disastrous health consequences, and we're just a few weeks into the new regime. I continue to believe that anyone who is concerned about fetuses should turn their attention to the maternity mortality problems we have in this country. There are plenty of lives to be saved by simply taking care of pregnant people who want to have children.

---

Do you think there are no Christians or Catholics in the Democratic Party? How is it that most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats in power claim to be Christian, and yet most of the Democrats support abortion rights? Are you saying they are lying? Are you claiming that Biden is not Catholic, Pelosi is not Catholic, Hilary is not Protestant, Omar is not Muslim? Christians actually do not believe you have to earn your way to heaven. It is already given. We live in light of that grace. So, you may think it is cute to claim Christian Sharia as something real, but it is not a real thing and goes against the Bible. Yes, Christians are influenced by their religion. All of our beliefs are defined by our experiences. But it is clear in the Bible that the world is not something we are trying to dominate or conquer or overrule or even judge. So, it is quite funny how people who have very little knowledge about Christianity are the most vocal about it. I guess that is consistent with the way this forum works. Knowledge has never been a requirement to acting like an expert.

Yes, Christians believe that loving others means you do not kill and you do not steal. Surprisingly, non-Christians believe the same and they are also part of our criminal laws. Does that mean we currently live in a Christian Sharia? I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance.

---

I'm saying that forced birth policies are driven by Christian dogma. Just because not all Christians are in favor of forced birth policies, doesn't mean that forced birth policies aren't a consequence of Christianity. If you want to tell me that real Christianity is copacetic with abortion, then I would say that the way that Christianity gets translated by the theocracy is in favor of forced birth. This isn't about bigotry. I'm not suggesting that pregnant Christians should be getting abortions. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be forced to give birth because we've enshrined some version of religious ideology (in this case Christian) into law.

---

I never said that my understanding of Christianity is copacetic with abortion. I don't believe that God is bound by time and space where he needs to think about before birth or after birth. I believe He knew me forever and loved me still not because I was born a certain way or earned His love. He loved me through all times because He chose to love me. With that belief, I am personally against abortion. Being OK with abortion on a personal matter would be taking over the throne in my life from God because it is easier or more convenient. But that is different from me forcing others to conform to my faith when they don't believe and have no capacity to believe. So, I am not seeking to force non-believers to obey. I would rather there weren't so much desire for maximizing one's worldly pleasures and greed that leads to things like adultery and unwanted pregnancy, but I am under no illusion that we will ourselves create a sinless world here or that this world is not broken by our desire to live our lives as gods of our own worlds. For example, I may have personal views on fornication, adultery, etc., but I have no desire to make my views into worldly laws.

I am guessing you have your own moral values from something you worship. For some, they worship power, worldly approvals, etc. You probably cannot pinpoint where they came from or why you even have them. You could appeal to basic utilitarian philosophy, but I would suspect that doesn't align with all your beliefs or why your beliefs are better than nihilism or the Superman theory. But trying to narrow your disagreement into your bigotry against a religion you barely recognize is clearly arrogance. Maybe familiarize yourself with different cultures and religion instead of judging your entire views on slanted opinion pieces like some racists do with clips of crime committed by certain members of the community. Open your mind.

---

This reads like bigotry against people who don't worship your religion. The last paragraph in particular is narrow-minded and cringe-worthy. I don't need to study Christianity to determine I don't want it imposed on me and the US constitution protects me from Christian bigotry.

Judaism is far more copacetic with abortion than Christianity, as you've described it, but I don't think we should force people to live under Jewish law. As I recall from the story of Passover, God killed all the first born sons of Egyptians but I don't think we should kill first born sons because it happened in a religious story. We don't live in a Jewish theocracy and we shouldn't live in a Christian one. If people want to live under Muslim Sharia, they can move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If people want to live under a Jewish theocracy they can move to Israel. If they want to live under a Christian theocracy, they can go make a new country, but the constitution clearly is meant to prevent the US from being one.

What I also know is that the forced birth laws in this country are driven by Christianity and that as a consequence pregnant people are suffering and will continue to suffer. Stories continue to pour in of pregnant people unable to receive medical care. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other risks to the lives of pregnant people which cannot be medically addressed because theocrats passed laws (some ambiguously) which are causing health care professionals to have to choose between losing their licenses (or going to jail) or treating their patients. Nothing you can say about your faith is going to change that.

---

First of all, the first paragraph is a deflection. Me stating that you may want to understand what Christianity is before claiming it is something it is not and then judging it and the people who believe it is not bigotry against non-believers just like asking Trump to understand the Mexican community before judging incorrectly the entire ethnic group is not being racist against non-Mexicans. How is that bigotry?

The second paragraph is odd. You even get Passover wrong. The Passover was from the Pharaoh choosing not to believe in any of Moses' prior miracles and hardening his heart against freeing the Jews from slavery. It wasn't a continuous law of killing all first born other than those of Jewish faith. What does that have to do with killing first born now? Celebrating Passover and believing in the Jewish faith doesn't mean you think all first borns should be killed now

And are those who are pro-life saying they are only pro-life because they are Christian? That doesn't even connect with non-Christians who are pro-life based on their experience with parenthood. That also doesn't connect with Christian leaders in the Democratic party who are pro-choice

Yes, there are things that are in the law that overlap with religion. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie under oath, etc. Does that mean we live a Christian, Muslim or Jewish Sharia now?

My personal beliefs on abortion comes from my religion as well as my experience as a parent. Non-Christians can believe the same just like non-Christians can believe murder is wrong. I mean, where does your belief that murder is wrong and should be illegalized come from? From a utilitarian view that making that illegal will lead to the most social good? Is that the basis for all your beliefs or is that from your Jewish beliefs? If something is proven to be helpful to the underprivileged but add little to overall utilitarian good, would you be against it, such as helping the homeless? Where do you think your views on abortion come from and why do you think you specifically weigh more the factors favoring abortion vs the counterweight? Are you imposing what you worship (maybe political party, feeling like you align with what you think is socially acceptable, etc) to others?

Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.

---

An unsurprising response. First, I didn't get Passover wrong. You are criticizing things I didn't say. What I said was accurate to the story. That's also relatively unimportant to this topic.

Second - the fact that some Christians don't believe that our government should be a theocracy doesn't negate what is happening. I have no issue with people of faith who aren't looking to impose their religious zeal on others. The 6 radical clerics on the Supreme Court were hand picked because they agree with religious Christian conservatives and will rule accordingly, as we've seen. You may object to calling them Christian because they are devout Catholics and not Protestant or whatever, but we didn't accidentally wind up with this group on the court. They were out there for this purpose.

Bonus points for your claim that there is a "bias against that religion here". There is no bias against Christianity in this country. The constitution imposes limitations on the Government's establishment of religion, which is being tested by GOP Christians all over this country. It's not being tested by Muslims or Jewish people or anyone else. Acknowledging that isn't bias or bigotry. That is just speaking plainly about what is happening and why it's happening.

As for your questions about what I worship and your insinuating that it could be something non-religious, perhaps you need to study other cultures to understand that not everyone aligns their life around "worship". Having views isn't necessarily "worship". I don't consider anything I believe to rise to the level of worship and don't think "worship" should be a factor in creating laws that limit freedoms in our country.

I'm not expecting us to see eye to eye on this topic overall, but I'm honestly surprised that you can't readily acknowledge that the Dobbs decision was rooted in Christianity. We all know what happened.

---

Not surprised either by this exchange.

On the first point, I was criticizing how what is celebrated on Passover was a one-time event and not a continuing belief that first-born should be killed. As such, your extension of that in your example didn't make sense.

Just because a group of Christians believe something does not make the push for restrictions on abortion a theocracy. First of all, you never addressed my point that most of the Democrats claim to be Christian and yet are still pro-choice. Also, Sotomayor is Catholic and Jackson is a Protestant. Are they practicing theocracy or are you just saying anyone who is pro-life must a a "cleric". How do all those Catholics and Protestants who support pro-choice laws align with your view that this is solely a Christian issue? And you choosing to call in a derogatory manner justices as "radical clerics" is showing that all of this is coming from your view on their religious choice and not on their legal arguments. I am certain that most folks who voted for the conservative justices would have also done so for a non-Christian and non-Catholic who was pro-life. But not surprising that you do not answer this question on aligning so many Christian Democrats with your view on this being a theocracy since you want to make this an attack on Christianity and not about belief on when life starts.

I also never stated that THIS COUNTRY was anti-Christian. How does me saying that the progressives here are anti-Christian translate in your brain to me saying the country is anti-Christian? I know you spend a lot of time here, but this is not the entire world or even this country. And there is a clear bias against Christianity here on this forum.

And you think "worship" means only religion. People have beliefs and morals based on what they worship, whether religion, money, power, status, political purity, peer affirmation, comfort, other people, romantic relationships, etc. You know what you worship? You worship whatever takes up your time, energy, passion, and money. You worship what you fear losing the most. And what you worship defines your moral values. You worship money? Guess where your morals and values are going to go. You worship getting pat on the back for parroting party lines? Guess how you will spend your time here?

And unsurprisingly, you never answered your basis for your beliefs. You think Christians only think along Christian lines. What drives your morals? Utilitarianism? You clearly do not believe in a creator that defines morals and good/evil. So, is it subjective moralism? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong depending on your personal views of good and bad? Nihilism? Superman theory of might defining right? If you are pushing for your values in how this society should be run, is it that you are pushing what you are worshiping on us? Doubt you will answer that.

calbear93 said:

---

Not surprised either by this exchange.

On the first point, I was criticizing how what is celebrated on Passover was a one-time event and not a continuing belief that first-born should be killed. As such, your extension of that in your example didn't make sense.

---

LOL, there are a lot of things about the story of passover that make it inapplicable to our society today, the least of which is because it was a one-time event. I very clearly said we shouldn't kill people because it happened in a religious story but you are quibbling about the nature of the religious story itself.

calbear93 said:

---

Just because a group of Christians believe something does not make the push for restrictions on abortion a theocracy. First of all, you never addressed my point that most of the Democrats claim to be Christian and yet are still pro-choice. Also, Sotomayor is Catholic and Jackson is a Protestant. Are they practicing theocracy or are you just saying anyone who is pro-life must a a "cleric". How do all those Catholics and Protestants who support pro-choice laws align with your view that this is solely a Christian issue? And you choosing to call in a derogatory manner justices as "radical clerics" is showing that all of this is coming from your view on their religious choice and not on their legal arguments. I am certain that most folks who voted for the conservative justices would have also done so for a non-Christian and non-Catholic who was pro-life. But not surprising that you do not answer this question on aligning so many Christian Democrats with your view on this being a theocracy since you want to make this an attack on Christianity and not about belief on when life starts.

---

Actually, the important fact is that the push for restrictions on abortion is religious in nature is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that other people are religious but don't attempt to enshrine their religious beliefts into law is something I've addressed and isn't relevant to the fact that 6 religious clerics just issued what is essentially a religious opinion in Dobbs. I'm surprised you would continue to pretend that Christianity has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision when it is the clear motivating factor. Judge Alito, who wrote the religious opinion, recently spoke about his decision in a panelon religious liberty in Rome sponsored by Notre Dame. I suppose if he did so while tap dancing on the popemobile you still might not see what's going on but I assure you, the rest of us do.

calbear93 said:

---

I also never stated that THIS COUNTRY was anti-Christian. How does me saying that the progressives here are anti-Christian translate in your brain to me saying the country is anti-Christian? I know you spend a lot of time here, but this is not the entire world or even this country. And there is a clear bias against Christianity here on this forum.

---

You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.

calbear93 said:

---

And you think "worship" means only religion. People have beliefs and morals based on what they worship, whether religion, money, power, status, political purity, peer affirmation, comfort, other people, romantic relationships, etc. You know what you worship? You worship whatever takes up your time, energy, passion, and money. You worship what you fear losing the most. And what you worship defines your moral values. You worship money? Guess where your morals and values are going to go. You worship getting pat on the back for parroting party lines? Guess how you will spend your time here?

---

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.

calbear93 said:

---

And unsurprisingly, you never answered your basis for your beliefs. You think Christians only think along Christian lines. What drives your morals? Utilitarianism? You clearly do not believe in a creator that defines morals and good/evil. So, is it subjective moralism? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong depending on your personal views of good and bad? Nihilism? Superman theory of might defining right? If you are pushing for your values in how this society should be run, is it that you are pushing what you are worshiping on us? Doubt you will answer that.

---

Again, you seem to have missed the point. As often happens with the topic of religion, you have trouble disentangling arguments that get confused in your head. As I have stated multiple times, it's not that ALL Christians ONLY think along Christian lines. First - I will note that you don't even consider Catholics to be Christian because they don't meet your purity test, so you can pretend like this doesn't involve Christians. Second - I've clearly stated that my issue is with the theocracy, not Christians themselves. I could care less if people want to believe in or worship a creator, that's up to them. What I object to is people imposing those beliefs on other people, particularly with the force of law, as the 6 radical clerics on SCOTUS have done with Dobbs.


To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.


I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.