It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
You realize, of course, that the Constitution does not actually provide for separation of Church and State. It merely provides for the inability of congress to create a state approved church.
Yes, I know all the arguments. Arguments that seemingly assume incorrectly that Jefferson was the sole framer and signer of the Constitution. Arguments that seem to ignore that each and ever congressional session since day one began with a prayer. I can go on and on...
The problem is this: they didn't do it right. They "interpreted" the constitution to mean that. No amendment has been passed... nothing. In other words, a SCOTUS in the future could very well reverse the interpretation.
These are the words: "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." Period.
What if, in the future, SCOTUS decided, at the urging of the Executive and Legislative branches that the following:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Means that it is necessary to eliminate the bottom 10% of the country. I can interpret the above to mean that just as easily as I can interpret the constitution to mean absolute separation of church and state.
BTW: I support separation. Absolutely. I just think it was done wrong. There is a process, established by the constitution, to make changes. The Judicial branch legislating from the bench is not how it is supposed to happen. Just another example of our constitution being twisted and applied as desired instead of to the letter.
The biggest slippery slope evah!
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine
I disagree...it's all about corporate personhood. If one accepts corporate personhood as legit, then it follows logically that corporations have the same religious freedoms as an individual.
Personally.........corporate personhood heaped on top of legalized lobbying/lobbyists is outrageous. The average Joe voter does not stand a chance.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FlyersFan
But... But... Mother Teresa renounced her faith shortly after she arrived in Calcutta. So is she in heaven or not?
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FlyersFan
But... But... Mother Teresa renounced her faith shortly after she arrived in Calcutta. So is she in heaven or not?
Not only that, and her self declared atheism, in a letter to the Pope, Mother Teresa would likely be the Saint that would protect legal and safe abortion, after all the death and misery she saw in the orphanages in Calcutta!
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine
Wow! How cynical. Could it be that she embodies the virtues that are central to the religion?
But hey! It's ok that football players make millions a year, or that a baseball player signs a contract for 215 million buckaroons. No problem. It's ok to advocate the slaughtering of children by the thousands...no sweat.
Our society is sick.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine
LOL
okie dokie!
So, we do not live in a sick society?
It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, while a janitor is paid a pittance?
It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, but a CEO is evil for making the same? hmm And a religion is evil because it takes in donations and does some good with that money.
I don't believe that "poverty is beautiful" was meant quite the way you illustrate it.
While I do not admire religion, I do have respect for those whose faith is real and they do not behave like self-righteous a-holes, like many religious and non-religious do. ilk
Funny how so many people need (NEED) to find a way to feel superior to others. There is something vaguely self-destructive about that. Perhaps it is a self-image problem. Who knows....
Please describe the difference between a fetus at 8 months, and a newly born baby? Both are capable of surviving with help. Both are human. If it is ok to kill the 8 month fetus, then it is equally ok to kill a 3 month old baby. An 8 month old baby.
Currently, this late-term abortion process is in use in pregnancies as late as 35 weeks by Shelley Sella and Susan Robinson at Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque, New Mexico, LeRoy Carhart at Germantown Reproductive Health Services in Germantown, Maryland, Warren Hern at the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado, and Josepha Seletz at Pro-Choice Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. Other abortionists also use this process in the second and third trimesters but are less open about it.
What do you call it when someone get's pregnant, does not want the child and has an abortion that is not health related?
As late as 35 weeks. That's damn near 9 months. You can see the wheres in the above quote.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: dawnstar
Ah..yes, because that is such a common situation.
No...I just have a problem with the recreational use of abortions. I have a problem with some stupid, ignorant woman (woman) who, apparently doesn't give a crap to take prior precautions, getting pregnant and then deciding that she doesn't want the kid and has it put to death.
Please describe the difference between a fetus at 8 months, and a newly born baby? Both are capable of surviving with help. Both are human. If it is ok to kill the 8 month fetus, then it is equally ok to kill a 3 month old baby. An 8 month old baby.
Nothing particularly magical happens during birth in which a fetus becomes a baby other than it is not directly hooked up to the mom. Now mom still has to feed and take care of the baby, just in a different way.
If being pregnant presents a dilemma for the mom's health, then I do believe it is up to the mom to make a terrible choice. One which no one should ever have to make, but unfortunately they do.
If the mom is not capable of making such a decision, then someone else will have to, either family or govt.
Funny how when abortion is mentioned, someone always has to pull a scenario from way out in left field as though that represents the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions are irresponsible women making irresponsible choices and enabled by the govt to commit murder to make their lives less complicated.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677
What do you call it when someone get's pregnant, does not want the child and has an abortion that is not health related?
I call it an accident or a mistake. An abortion is never recreational, although almost all sex is.
As late as 35 weeks. That's damn near 9 months. You can see the wheres in the above quote.
I'm going to ask you the question again. Who has an abortion at 8 months and why? Who administers an abortion at 8 months and why?
it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.
In 2003, Katha Pollitt, who is pro-choice, wrote an article for The Nation discussing late-term abortion. She gave the three most common reasons why women had these abortions (1): 71% didn’t realize they were pregnant 48% had difficulty making arrangements 33% were afraid of telling parents or partner The study she cites allowed for more than one answer, and these were the most common reasons given.
Governor John Kasich of Ohio just signed a budget bill that included a number of extreme restrictions on women’s health.
New restrictions imposed by the budget include:
Requiring a woman to undergo a physically invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound before receiving an abortion.
Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood clinics.
Withholding public funding if rape crisis centers counsel women on abortions.
Creating new administrative barriers that are intended to force abortion clinics to close.
Forcing abortion providers to provide “counseling” intended to dissuade women from having abortions.
Some time ago, Abby Johnson, former clinic director in the largest Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, addressed this issue by saying:
it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.