The future of abortion in the US

The Chief Justice in the Dred Scott decision devoted multiple pages to claiming he understood the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. His reading of the Constitution only allowed members of the white race to be US citizens, therefore Dred Scott had no legal standing to bring his suit.

Modern conservatives pat themselves on the back when they claim to be in favor of an originalist, a constitutionalist, and/or a textualist, but it's important to remember the nefarious origins of this judicial philosophy. It's used to justify opinions that deprive individuals of their rights. Expect it to get heavy play with an even further right leaning SC.

But...but....choice!

On the other hand it was worth enduring for the nice gift he sent me when I was in the hospital the first time in early 2016 and the courtesy he extended to me and my family.

We'll see how well we get along when I visit London (inevitably).

By the way Diacanu, where do you live? Perhaps I can kill two birds as it were.

*Cringe* *Wince* *Heartburn belch*

Oh come on. That's not a threat. But simply if I'm making some long distance trip it makes sense to maximize the number of people I meet. I'm not even a people person yet now and then I'm curious about the people on wordforge I've interacted with for a number of years. I remember back in 2003 when the guy from the TrekBBS called me. Can't remember who that was but it was a nice short conversation.

Bates Motel is in Oregon.

You can't even make it to the coasts.

Poor birds

Will Susan Collins Get Snookered Again?

Senator Susan Collins of Maine really wants you know that she’s not going to rubber stamp just anyone President Donald Trump nominates for the Supreme Court. In recent days she has embarked on a mini-media tour, telling viewers of CNN, ABC and listeners of the New York Times’ “The Daily”podcast that a nominee “who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me.” Also disqualifying would be an “activist judge” who “demonstrated a disrespect for the vital principle of stare decisis,” meaning deference to past Supreme Court precedents.

Her problem? Nobody believes her.

Her hedge on CNN, that she wouldn’t support a nominee with “demonstrated hostility” to Roe, leaves the door wide open to a savvy anti-abortion conservative who didn’t put too much down on paper. Her assurances that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch met her criteria and would never scrap Roe sent thousands of eyeballs rolling to the heavens. Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum wondered aloud, “Is Susan Collins the most gullible person on the planet?” New York Times columnist David Leonhardt was less charitable: “She is willing to neglect substance and put the highest priority on appearing centrist.”​

Not a promising analysis.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/06/will-susan-collins-get-snookered-again-218951

Well I know the coasts aren't within a few hundred miles like in United Kingdom but I still know how to get there.

And I was just on the Gulf Coast last year.

Because you got nothing but the talking points poured into your head by your puppet masters - and those cliches break down when challenged by reason.

Again, I speak from experience.

Also, I certainly hope your whole strategy is to remind me you're a hateful bigot in every post 'cause...i haven't forgotten.

Not all of these have been successful but...they are goals which the current party in power are striving towards:
Christians have the right to opt out of the requirements of law (Hobby Lobby)
Christians have the right to operate their businesses under different rules (Masterpiece/Arlene's et al)
Trans people can't serve in the military because Christians slander them
Trans people can't piss in peace because Christians want the law to establish ridiculous restrictions
Trans kids can't be affirmed by schools because Christians might be expected to treat them decently
Gays, trans, etc can be fired, evicted, turned away from businesses, etc because Christians (the DoJ has filed a brief to the effect that Title VII ans Title IX do not apply which is the legal protection that has helped get equality in the courts in spite of ADF - and now they have a SCOTUS who'll support it)
Christian doctrine trumps science in re abortion (on your 26 weeks question, no one allows abortions that late except for legit medical reasons - it's a red herring. Christians want the date moved back to so early a point that most women won't know they are pregnant before the window closes. Also, bans do not reduce the number of abortions - liberal policies do)
Christian doctrines of sex (and the supposed abstinence therefrom) becomes the defacto policy position and thus things like distribution of birth control and sex-ed classes become extension of church policy.
and so very much more.
Look up "Dominionism" - it is a real political agenda that almost every politically powerful White Evangelical activist favors - and they have Trump's ear and the power of the majority (of office holders) party.

This is not some "Bildiburg Illuminati" bullshit - it's right out in the open.

I live in Mississippi. They never really stopped. They literally passed a law specifically marking people like me as okay to discriminate against.

Whatever you say, Sunshine. Enjoy your time in fantasy land.

Perhaps you should change.

You first, "teacher"

Why? I'm okay the way I am. And why put teacher in quotation marks?

People like you? What does that mean? Cross dressers? Gay people? which one?

To scientifically prove it's a thing.
I'll give you a stack of my aunt's old 70's Playgirls and see if they gay you up, then we switch you back to Playboy to see if it straightens you back out.

I wonder why no Christian ever steps up for this experiment.

Forget it. I've been pointing out for years that the "sexual orientation is a choice" thing is flawed because otherwise I could solve my dry spell (well, grand ritual at this point) tomorrow by choosing to get it up for massively overweight chicks.

Midi-Matt ain't coming out to play though, no matter how much I try.

Hell, I could increase my pool of possible sexual partners two-fold if I could choose to be attracted to guys. But it ain't happening.

It has to be a choice for it to be a sin.
Because why would a just and loving God make you in a way he finds repulsive?

So, they have to tie their brains into knots to justify this shit.

Course, the easy answer that unties the knot is "it was written by primitive screw-heads in a pre-scientific era".

No you are fucking not. You are arguing in favour of discrimination. That is deeply wrong, by basic human morality and even more so by your Constitution.

Well, excepting original sin.

They had to have a get-out.

Imagine the committee meeting:

"Hey, I know it's unlikely, but what if someone so pure and good shows up that they never sin, but don't accept Christ?"

"Are we sure it's NOT Christ?"

"Well, yeah, Christ would be obvious because he'd immediately slaughter all the gays"

"Sure, yeah. Ah, well... umm.... I know! We say that folk are still tainted by Adam and Eve's sin against God!"

"But that happened millenia ago!"

"Yeah but God's an unforgiving fucker, we said that in the first book"

"Fuck yeah, he's one righteous SOB. Ain't takin' no shit from no sinners!"

"Careful, you sound like a black"

To test a person. Every person who ever lived has had things he or she had an inclination of some kind for that would be a sin if acted upon. Even something as basic as a big appetite which leads to the sin of gluttony.

I've never had a dick craving.
Have you?

Why would God saddle some people with homosexual desire, and not others?

And no chance of a resit? Even your fucked up school system is more sensible than that.

Why does God saddle some people with large appetites but low metabolism?
Why does God saddle some people with cravings for alcohol?

You could go on and on in questions about the motivations of God and the existence of free will.

Well, you could, I think it clearly points out that it's all BS.

Really? I must have missed that.