You People Who Think Separation of Church and State is Possible.......How Do You Reconcile Abortion??

[Blues Man]

but you want to take that same sovereignty from unborn humans. you contradict yourself.

I do not. That unborn fetus is attached to the body of a woman. The woman has the absolute authority to sever that attachment.

 

[Redfish]

I do not. That unborn fetus is attached to the body of a woman. The woman has the absolute authority to sever that attachment.

that is clearly your OPINION. and nothing more, that is what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do, so why not put it to a vote of the citizens of the country in a national referendum or state by state if you prefer? What is the objection to letting the people decide?

 

[Blues Man]

that is clearly your OPINION. and nothing more, that is what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do, so why not put it to a vote of the citizens of the country in a national referendum or state by state if you prefer? What is the objection to letting the people decide?

And you are doing the EXACT same thing aren't you?

Your stance is YOUR opinion.

That's kind of what everyone here does isn't it?

And how can you say I am not letting people decide when it is you who wants to dictate what a woman can and can't do to her own body? Why should another citizen be able to dictate to any person what they can and can't do to their own body?

Do you want to put all your decisions about your own body up to the popular vote? I bet you don't.

 

[Redfish]

I do not. That unborn fetus is attached to the body of a woman. The woman has the absolute authority to sever that attachment.

Again, that is your OPINION, not a biological fact. But why won't you answer my question about putting it to a vote of the people? That's how a democracy works, right?

 

[Redfish]

And you are doing the EXACT same thing aren't you?

Your stance is YOUR opinion.

That's kind of what everyone here does isn't it?

And how can you say I am not letting people decide when it is you who wants to dictate what a woman can and can't do to her own body? Why should another citizen be able to dictate to any person what they can and can't do to their own body?

Do you want to put all your decisions about your own body up to the popular vote? I bet you don't.

Yes, we all have opinions and beliefs, so when there is a diversity of opinion or belief democracies put it to a vote and let the majority opinion prevail, why are you opposed to that?

 

[Blues Man]

Again, that is your OPINION, not a biological fact. But why won't you answer my question about putting it to a vote of the people? That's how a democracy works, right?

So it's not a biological FACT that the fetus is attached to the woman's body?

And I did answer that question.

Why is it you think the mob has a right to dictate what any person does to his or her own body?

Why don't we put everything up to a vote?

A person has complete sovereignty over his own body. PERIOD.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, we all have opinions and beliefs, so when there is a diversity of opinion or belief democracies put it to a vote and let the majority opinion prevail, why are you opposed to that?

Rights are not voted upon.

Do you want to put slavery back on the ballot?

My rights to my own body are not up for a vote as no one else has sovereignty over my body or what I do to it.

 

[Redfish]

So it's not a biological FACT that the fetus is attached to the woman's body?

And I did answer that question.

Why is it you think the mob has a right to dictate what any person does to his or her own body?

Why don't we put everything up to a vote?

A person has complete sovereignty over his own body. PERIOD.

of course the baby is attached to its mother during pregnancy, It has a beating heart and is fed by its mother during gestation. None of that justifies killing the baby. No other country in the entire world views abortion like the USA, why is that?

The majority is not the mob. According to you libs, the MAJORITY elected senile joe, but on the matter of abortion you reject the idea of majority vote. You are a hypocrite.

 

[Redfish]

Rights are not voted upon.

Do you want to put slavery back on the ballot?

My rights to my own body are not up for a vote as no one else has sovereignty over my body or what I do to it.

bullshit, rights are in fact voted on. Was the constitution not ratified by a vote of the states? But if you want to take that position, then rights are conferred by God and are not under the control of any governmental body or any vote.

You do have the rights to do as you choose with YOUR body, but the unborn human that you allowed to be conceived inside you also has rights, specifically the RIGHT to LIFE. But to take your position to the ridiculous extreme, why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years old if the kid becomes "inconvenient" Why is a 2 year old more of a person than a 6 month old that has not been born yet? Your position defies logic, but you knew that already, that's why you abortionists are always yelling and screaming about this, because somewhere deep down inside you KNOW you are wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

of course the baby is attached to its mother during pregnancy, It has a beating heart and is fed by its mother during gestation. None of that justifies killing the baby. No other country in the entire world views abortion like the USA, why is that?

The majority is not the mob. According to you libs, the MAJORITY elected senile joe, but on the matter of abortion you reject the idea of majority vote. You are a hypocrite.

We have a republic because the founders understood that democracy is naught but mob rule. Tell me why do you want to give decisions on what you do to your own body to other people? And What gives you the right to tell other people what they can do to their own bodies?

We do not put human rights up to a vote. But you seem to want to so when do we put slavery on the ballot?



And I'll tell you again since you seem to have a very severe memory problem. I have not voted for a republican or a democrat in about 30 years because unlike you I realized a long time ago that the duopoly is utterly corrupt. I vote for third party candidates only

But if you can't see the difference between electing a temporary leader by a vote and giving people you don't know and that do not give a shit about you the power to decide what you can or can't do to your own body then you have far greater mental impairment than a poor memory.

 

[Blues Man]

bullshit, rights are in fact voted on. Was the constitution not ratified by a vote of the states? But if you want to take that position, then rights are conferred by God and are not under the control of any governmental body or any vote.

You do have the rights to do as you choose with YOUR body, but the unborn human that you allowed to be conceived inside you also has rights, specifically the RIGHT to LIFE. But to take your position to the ridiculous extreme, why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years old if the kid becomes "inconvenient" Why is a 2 year old more of a person than a 6 month old that has not been born yet? Your position defies logic, but you knew that already, that's why you abortionists are always yelling and screaming about this, because somewhere deep down inside you KNOW you are wrong.

Our entire government is based on the idea that a person's rights are inherent and cannot be granted or taken away by anyone

Read a little history.

a fetus is not a person in the eyes of the law. If a woman wants to remove a fetus from her body it is her decision not yours. And I am not an abortionist. I cannot have an abortion. I do not perform abortions.

The only thing I am stating is that every single person has absolute sovereignty over their own body. You want to deny that sovereignty to everyone or is it just women?

 

[JamesE]

T

You people might remember my excellent thread calling for the US to become a Christian Nation It’s Time to Formally Declare America A Christian Nation. In it, I made the airtight case that separation of church and state is impossible, has never happened, and cannot ever happen, and should be amended out of the Constitution. Let's face it. The framers made a mistake, just like they did in calling blacks 3/5 human.

Separation of Church and state is possible with most laws: No littering, no running a red light, etc. But there are some laws, the most important ones, where separation is impossible without creating an atheist state. In order to have actual separation of church and state, you have to have laws which the Catholic Church and other Christians can't follow in good conscience. In other words, atheist laws. Therefore abortion and gay marriage cannot be reconciled with separation of church and state without creating an atheist state. Leftist atheists say the current reversal of Roe v Wade violates separation of church and state because it pushes religious values. I say allowing abortion makes the state tantamount to an atheist state.

I would also add the Supreme Court declared atheism a religion in 1961, so why are we favoring the religion of atheism over the Christian religions? Again, separation of church and state is impossible, so let's scrap it and done with it.

I challenge anyone in the forum who claim to want separation of church and state (probably most people) tp reconcile the issues of abortion and gay marriage with the First Amendment without promoting the religion of atheism. I guarantee no one will be able to do it.

There is no Seperation of Church and State written in the Consitution. I

 

[dblack]

There is no Seperation of Church and State written in the Consitution. I

So you a fan of theocracy?

 

[JamesE]

So you a fan of theocracy?

Nope, but no where in the Constitution is the phrase seperation of Church and State. It reads " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment religion" translated= speration of church FROM state, not spereation of church AND state.

 

[dblack]

Nope, but no where in the Constitution is the phrase seperation of Church and State.

I dunno. Don't really care. But I sure as hell don't want a theocracy

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Our entire government is based on the idea that a person's rights are inherent and cannot be granted or taken away by anyone

Read a little history.

a fetus is not a person in the eyes of the law.

Slaves were humans with inherent rights, but not people. Read a little history. You’d think you’d know this particular bit of history given the demography you mentioned before, but oh well, since you don’t slavery was this thing that happened in this and other countries.

If a woman wants to remove a fetus from her body it is her decision not yours.

“If a plantation owner wants to put down some old negro who can’t work anymore, that’s his decision, not yours. His plantation, his negro, his choice.”

And I am not an abortionist. I cannot have an abortion. I do not perform abortions.

You’re pro-abortion, which means you are an unreasonable bigot, and you provide support for the legal shield these contract killers operate under and that is bad enough.

You are capable of offering other support to abortionists but that would take you beyond the realm of just words and thoughts and make you a monster worthy of dying in a cage just like them. So hopefully that isn’t the case.

The only thing I am stating is that every single person has absolute sovereignty over their own body.

Your kid’s body isn’t your body, you don’t own them, and you can’t righteously kill them on a whim no matter what a rights-violating government says to the contrary.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Slaves were humans with inherent rights, but not people.

NFBW: Slaves were considered persons in the original Constitution as written. You are a liar.

HeyNorm230120-#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs. ••••

NFBW230204-#7,112 Posted Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •

NFBW230204-#7,112 • Your racially tinged ignorance of the historical, sociological and Constitutional FACT of the 3/5 Clause Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is on display because you have constructed your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument when you ask in the way that you asked it.

So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? See-#6,808 Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

NFBW: The “Slave Owner” = “Fetus Owner” anti-reproductive freedom propaganda theme has not found common usage or any usage among opponents of women’s reproductive freedom and rights because it is an ass-backwards interpretation of the CONSTITUTION and the subject of involuntary servitude.*1 *1 230204ref”b

You are wrong HeyNorm because Our Founding Fathers some of whom being Slave Owners , considered their race-based chattel slaves whom they held under involuntary servitude to be persons and fully human.

Race and the Constitution
Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States. David Azerrad, Ph.D. ••••
Former Director and AWC Family Foundation Fellow •••• David Azerrad studies conservatism, progressivism, identity politics, libertarianism and the American Founding.

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

NFBW230204-#7,112 • I can’t coerce you to read the above HeyNorm but it’s submitted as backup for the ongoing destruction of your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument laid out in your post 6808

HeyNorm230120-#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

END2303030704

 

[whutTHEYsay]

“If a plantation owner wants to put down some old negro who can’t work anymore, that’s his decision, not yours. His plantation, his negro, his choice.”

You are so full of shit

Historian Lawrence M. Friedmanwrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was ′convicted of cruel treatment,′ the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."[11]

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

This fucking refuse demon crawls out of his sewer to use the 3/5th Compromise by which the South eeked out for itself more power by pretending negros counted as people only for purposes of representation in Congress and for nothing else, a cynical manipulative move, as an argument that the Constitution treated them as people… just so he can argue for killing more human beings?

NotfooledbyW Die.

That’s all anyone of conscience can say to you, you inhuman filth, and that’s all you rate.

 

[PeterPilot]

that is clearly your OPINION. and nothing more, that is what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do, so why not put it to a vote of the citizens of the country in a national referendum or state by state if you prefer? What is the objection to letting the people decide?

If voters decide that all first born children must be killed, would you kill your first born? If voters decided that Asians shall have no citizenship, would you go along with that?