Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[Cleon]

Seems like Judeo-Christian principles don't include freedom of choice. Or at least, not when it's inconvenient to the moral guardians.

Tacking on the "Judeo" part when it comes to abortion smacks of ignorance. Jewish law does not agree with the "abortion is murder" notion.

 

[Belz...]

"In God We Trust" does say something about the US though.

Yeah: too many religious nuts.

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/kentucky-abortion-bills-pass/index.html

Basically no abortion (unless life in danger) past 20 weeks, and forcing an examination to make the woman hear the heartbeat and see the embryo (although the law note the woman can "advert her eye" and ask the heartbeat sound to be muted).

Deplorable emotional manipulation on the side of lawmaker. They start in high gear. This is the type of law which is 100% about enforcing their own religious view onto other people and has zero other practical purpose.

That's still like 8 more weeks than in France, isn't it?

The part about making women listen to the heartbeat is nonsense of course.

 

[MaverickPLM]

Interesting how you would happen to have a pre 1957 $5 bill handy from the cash drawer. A bill prior to the mandate requiring all US bills be printed with the motto "In God We Trust". Of course most US coins already had the motto "In God We Trust" prior to 1957 though.............Since 1832? or so?

I suppose you are trying to suggest our National motto is not "In God We Trust"........That is our National motto though. Feel free to check.
Chris B.

I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Even the US Supreme Court has decided that the US recognizes that our "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being"...

Not doubting you, but can you point me to the case for future reference?

As an aside, that would seem to paint atheists as second class citizens, forced to guess at the nature of that Supreme Being and how institutions might use that presupposition in determining policy.

 

[turingtest]

OK, so in summary, there are no Christian principles embodied in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

(Seriously, the "the year of our Lord" thing is silly. I use "AD" all the time, and I'm freaking Jewish.)

Seriously silly. "The dating convention at the end of the Constitution shows Christian principles in it." Birth certificates, diplomas, any number of other legal documents having the same dating convention must therefore also have those Christian principles, I guess.

It's a childish attempt at a "gotcha!" by folks who really don't have anything else, like the "ecularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever" thing. I suppose it could only have been truly secular if it had said something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of you-know-what" or "...no you-know-what test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It's like an atheist saying "I don't believe in god," and a fundie crowing triumphantly "but you said 'god!' You can't name what you don't believe in! Ha ha!" To repeat- just childish reasoning.

And "secular" doesn't even mean "atheist"- it's really, in this context, more akin to "neutral." I can't imagine how you could have a document recognizing the right to freedom of religion for all beliefs (including none) without not taking a position on any one in particular; having "Christian principles" in the document establishing government's neutrality between them would be a contradiction of its own terms.

And the rest of Chris's copy-paste- desperate flailing by people who can't, after all, find any actual Christian principles established in the Constitution, so they have to resort to mind-reading the writers, instead of, you know- reading what they wrote. "Strict constructionists," indeed.

 

[marplots]

I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.

When do you think we switched over?

 

[turingtest]

Not doubting you, but can you point me to the case for future reference?

As an aside, that would seem to paint atheists as second class citizens, forced to guess at the nature of that Supreme Being and how institutions might use that presupposition in determining policy.

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:

Under § 3210 of the New York Education Law and the regulations thereunder, New York City permits its public schools to release students during school hours, on written requests of their parents, so that they may leave the school buildings and grounds and go to religious centers for religious instruction or devotional exercises. The same section makes school attendance compulsory; students not released stay in the classrooms, and the churches report to the schools the names of children released from public schools who fail to report for religious instruction. The program involves neither religious instruction in public schools nor the expenditure of public funds.

Chris's quote is from William Douglas's opinion:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma.

You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy. There's no implication in the opinion that specifically "Christian principles" are favored in our institutions or embodied in the Constitution; in fact, quite the opposite.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:

Thank you.

A day when I learn something new is a good day!

 

[Spock Jenkins]

As a relatively conservative Catholic, it frustrates me to no end when people get really basic stuff in arguments wrong. Referring back to the "under God" discussion from earlier in the thread. Everyone should know when that was added to the pledge and currency. It just erodes the credibility of anything else people say when we get that stuff wrong.

The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life". When is a person a person and when do they have a right to have their life respected and defended? Some argue that this right should begin at conception. Others argue that it should begin somewhere between conception and birth. Some after birth. And still others argue that it doesn't start until they no longer lead a parasitic existence (I think healthcare laws in the U.S. put that at age 26 or so?).

From an early Saturday Night Live bit. I believe it was called Jeopardy 2000 and possibly aired during Steve Martin's first hosting gig in the 1970's.:

Q: "Legalized in 1983, it eased overpopulation"
A: "What is baby killing?"

 

[Belz...]

The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life".

As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.

 

[Belz...]

You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy.

Well, yeah, since by definition "neutral" means you're not its enemy.

 

[turingtest]

Well, yeah, since by definition "neutral" means you're not its enemy.

Whoops, yeah, that got a little tautological, I think. Replace "neutral" with "secular" for what I was driving at- a secular government isn't, by definition, one that's hostile to religion. I think too many people mistake "secular" as a synonym for "atheist," and proceed to build strawmen to flail at from that misapprehension.

 

[Aepervius]

That's still like 8 more weeks than in France, isn't it?

The part about making women listen to the heartbeat is nonsense of course.

I never said the abortion law are better in France. But at least in France you have the doctor and gynecologue which are relatively cheap with part reimbursed by security social, and same for many women's contraceptive, and sex ed is in for everybody. Even for teenage pregnancy we have 1/4 of the rate of the US (10 versus 40 per 1000 women 15–19). Not even counting that we got condom distributor vending machine in the street and at in high schools door.

I hate these "compared to" because this is not about what country is better than other, but making it worst comparing from to after in the same country.

Are you arguying that because some country have a lower number of weeks such laws are fine ?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.

Actually, as I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose to have an abortion", and up to which point you still have that right."

At least for a those unafraid to verbalize what choice they're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Whoops, yeah, that got a little tautological, I think. Replace "neutral" with "secular" for what I was driving at- a secular government isn't, by definition, one that's hostile to religion. I think too many people mistake "secular" as a synonym for "atheist," and proceed to build strawmen to flail at from that misapprehension.

Fair enough.

Actually, as I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose to have an abortion", and up to which point you still have that right."

I thought that was obvious. I wasn't talking about buying a Toyota.

 

[CORed]

Sounds great, and blue states can stop the distribution of CPUs/GPUs as well as smartphones to red states.

China is a blue state?

 

[fuelair]

I freely confirm that in a matter of minutes I was able to verify that in 1956, H. J. Resolution 396 officially replaced the previously de facto unofficial "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust".

It, however, remains a Bigfoot of a mystery how this in any possible way supports the establishment of a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles by the Founding Fathers around the year 1776.

Some people just cannot recognize how that worked/works.

 

[fuelair]

As a relatively conservative Catholic, it frustrates me to no end when people get really basic stuff in arguments wrong. Referring back to the "under God" discussion from earlier in the thread. Everyone should know when that was added to the pledge and currency. It just erodes the credibility of anything else people say when we get that stuff wrong.

The basic core of this whole debate is still, and will always remain the "right to life". When is a person a person and when do they have a right to have their life respected and defended? Some argue that this right should begin at conception. Others argue that it should begin somewhere between conception and birth. Some after birth. And still others argue that it doesn't start until they no longer lead a parasitic existence (I think healthcare laws in the U.S. put that at age 26 or so?).

From an early Saturday Night Live bit. I believe it was called Jeopardy 2000 and possibly aired during Steve Martin's first hosting gig in the 1970's.:

Q: "Legalized in 1983, it eased overpopulation"
A: "What is baby killing?"

If it helps I think every one should be free to have an abortion if they want one but no one should be forced to have one if they do not choose it.

 

[marplots]

If it helps I think every one should be free to have an abortion if they want one but no one should be forced to have one if they do not choose it.

I would like to have an abortion but I cannot get one. Heck, I can't even get pregnant. Where's the justice there?