Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[dgl]

(Moved from Starmer thread)

Had to look up the latter, I see it's about same-sex marriage. I really fail to understand why there are so many interfering busybodies in the world who seem obsessed with telling other people what to do with their lives. If someone wants an abortion, if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, that is no business but their own. It's not the business of some right-wing authoritarian control freak like the people in charge of Alabama, for example. 99 years in jail for carrying out an abortion?

The authoritarians who want to take away other people's private rights and stick their nose into other people's private business must have real psychological problems; it's very hard to understand why they are so obsessed with shutting down other people's rights. What impact on someone's life does it have if someone else decides to have a gay marriage or an abortion? Absolutely none. So why are these people so obsessed with interfering in other people's lives?

The 2020s is a truly dark decade, in more ways than one. The first decade since the 1940s in which the movement on social issues, relative to the previous decade, is towards conservatism and authoritarianism. The world needs to wake up and recognise the great dangers of social conservatism and how it threatens to erode hard-won rights.

If Christians truly believe that God created everything then not only must god have created gay/lesbian/trans Etc. people but the whole idea of it in the first place.
Also the joke seems to be that a man can't lay with another man, but if one of them is under age and one of then is a priest then it's fine.
I think the Oet Shop Biys song "Can You Forgive Her?" Is quite apt here as I guess there are a lot of people who are against certain normal groups of people because they know they are secretly one of them but can't come to terms with it and need a distraction.

 

[najaB]

If his running-mate was someone competent and not too far to the right, it could sway me.

Those people left the party years ago, once Trump took over.

 

[bahnause]

Many people quite seriously regard abortion as murder because it's killing what they see as a living human being. If someone believes that, then it's really not hard to understand why they'd want to outlaw it: Nothing to do with being an interfering busy-body and everything to do with (as this person would see it) peoples' lives.

A lot of these people do not even want to allow an exception for medical reasons. They are willing to put both mother and child in danger. It's not about life, it's about power and it's about control. This entrenchment behind their beliefs is not only irrelevant because other people might have different believes (or even better: care about the facts), it is also dishonest.

 

[najaB]

It's not about life, it's about power and it's about control.

"My religious beliefs override your rights and I'm going to save you whether you want it or not."

 

[The Ham]

"My religious beliefs override your rights and I'm going to save you whether you want it or not."

Indeed, only it shouldn't be like that.

The first two things Christians should be doing is "love the lord your God", and then "love your neighbour as yourself" (basically anything else shouldn't override these).

By enforcing rules which being harm to people (banning abortions outright, not putting in place systems to limit those who may not be suitable to own a gun, etc.) they fail.

By dehumanising groups (non American, non white, non male, non rich, non straight, etc.) they fail.

By not having compassion to other citizens ("I don't want my tax to fund..." be that healthcare for the "undeserving", rehabilitation for those who have - for example - a drug problem or mental health issues and want help, social secretary so there's a safety net incase things do wrong - but that will mean that some will take advantage of it) they fail.

By not having compassion on others (I don't want people who may well be at risk of death if they stay where they happened to be born living here - where the primary reason that most people are there are due to the accident of where they were born, or we should look after our own first - the reality is often they don't want to do that either, as they will be classed as undeserving, see above) they fail.

Fortunately (and I say this as a Christian), we have fewer people who are "Christian" by birth in the UK than there is the US. Which means that our politicians are less likely to want to look for their vote.

Communism is a good idea, other than people are greedy, Capitalism is a good idea other than greedy, a Christian nation is a good idea other than people are greedy. Where greed (be that for money or power or control) is what is motivating someone (Trump is a textbook case) then they are wholly unsuitable for office.

The problem is that too many like what's being offered, not aware that they too could fall outside of the ideal for the "in" group and could find themselves being oppressed or persecuted or denied access to government provision. Especially when, for example, America doesn't become great after "dealing" with immigration, who's next on the list for the problems in the country? Can you be sure that they are going to stop at that group, or are there another 10 groups, 100, groups? At what point could you be at risk of being in one of those groups?

 

[birchesgreen]

There is nothing that much "Christian" about these extreme evangelical groups, especially the ones who push this Seven Mountains mandate nonsense.

 

[nw1]

You really don't understand why people would want to outlaw abortion? Where have you been living the last few years? I totally agree with you that abortion should be legal and it's awful that it isn't in so many places, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why other people would see it differently and want to make it illegal: Many people quite seriously regard abortion as murder because it's killing what they see as a living human being. If someone believes that, then it's really not hard to understand why they'd want to outlaw it: Nothing to do with being an interfering busy-body and everything to do with (as this person would see it) protecting peoples' lives.

Making/keeping gay marriage illegal is perhaps trickier to understand because there's no sensible argument about that causing material harm to anyone else, but even so I can understand why someone who has been brought up to believe, and genuinely believes, that marriage is a Holy union between a man and a woman would see gay marriage as wrong (even though I'd disagree with that person).

It's fine for people to oppose that privately (on either matter - though in both cases I would personally disagree). Where it becomes wrong, in both cases, however, is where people's opposition to abortion or gay marriage become law.

As I said, it's really not law-makers' business to interfere in private lives in this way. It's quite disgusting what is going on in places like Alabama. If the people who run Alabama believe, personally, that abortion is wrong, fine. However they should absolutely not turn their personal beliefs into the kind of authoritarianism that now holds sway in that part of the USA.

A lot of these people do not even want to allow an exception for medical reasons. They are willing to put both mother and child in danger. It's not about life, it's about power and it's about control. This entrenchment behind their beliefs is not only irrelevant because other people might have different believes (or even better: care about the facts), it is also dishonest.aate

Absolutely, that's what these people are motivated by. Plus, I suspect, in the case of the people who run some of these Republican states, a hatred of liberals and liberalism and a desire to wage war on any cause associated with liberalism.

I do seriously wonder whether the USA should split in two, given it's so polarised, and there is a clear geographical pattern to that polarisation. Have the liberal west-coast and east-coast states as one country, and the conservative southern and midwestern states as another. In the latter case, Trump can, if he desires, have the right to stand for more than two terms, which would doubtless make him president for life.

There would of course need to be FoM between the two countries.

 

[JamesT]

It's fine for people to oppose that privately (on either matter - though in both cases I would personally disagree). Where it becomes wrong, in both cases, however, is where people's opposition to abortion or gay marriage become law.

As I said, it's really not law-makers' business to interfere in private lives in this way. It's quite disgusting what is going on in places like Alabama. If the people who run Alabama believe, personally, that abortion is wrong, fine. However they should absolutely not turn their personal beliefs into the kind of authoritarianism that now holds sway in that part of the USA.

Isn't that just the joy of democracy? The people of Alabama have elected politicians who have made it pretty clear what policies they would enact are. As seen in some other states, if the people want a different outcome they can vote accordingly.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed, only it shouldn't be like that.

The first two things Christians should be doing is "love the lord your God", and then "love your neighbour as yourself" (basically anything else shouldn't override these).

Too many people on the planet for that I am afraid !.

By enforcing rules which being harm to people (banning abortions outright, not putting in place systems to limit those who may not be suitable to own a gun, etc.) they fail.

By dehumanising groups (non American, non white, non male, non rich, non straight, etc.) they fail.

And its the thin end of the wedge. Cue Tribalism.

By not having compassion to other citizens ("I don't want my tax to fund..." be that healthcare for the "undeserving", rehabilitation for those who have - for example - a drug problem or mental health issues and want help, social secretary so there's a safety net incase things do wrong - but that will mean that some will take advantage of it) they fail.

By not having compassion on others (I don't want people who may well be at risk of death if they stay where they happened to be born living here - where the primary reason that most people are there are due to the accident of where they were born, or we should look after our own first - the reality is often they don't want to do that either, as they will be classed as undeserving, see above) they fail.

Fortunately (and I say this as a Christian), we have fewer people who are "Christian" by birth in the UK than there is the US. Which means that our politicians are less likely to want to look for their vote.

BUT this reminds me. Rochdale an example of a different religion becoming a significant factor in an election. Dangerous. Goerge Galloway raising the hopes of a minority cum majority. Opening Pandora's box of promises.

Communism is a good idea, other than people are greedy, Capitalism is a good idea other than greedy, a Christian nation is a good idea other than people are greedy. Where greed (be that for money or power or control) is what is motivating someone (Trump is a textbook case) then they are wholly unsuitable for office.

Reminds me "Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie".

The problem is that too many like what's being offered, not aware that they too could fall outside of the ideal for the "in" group and could find themselves being oppressed or persecuted or denied access to government provision. Especially when, for example, America doesn't become great after "dealing" with immigration, who's next on the list for the problems in the country? Can you be sure that they are going to stop at that group, or are there another 10 groups, 100, groups? At what point could you be at risk of being in one of those groups?

This is exactly how Nazism rose to the fore in the late 1920 and 1930s - a creeping dismantling of democracy. Trump is at the early stages of what Adolf Hitler did. Remember him - democratically elected at first - look to history for the answer to the future.

It's fine for people to oppose that privately (on either matter - though in both cases I would personally disagree). Where it becomes wrong, in both cases, however, is where people's opposition to abortion or gay marriage become law.

As I said, it's really not law-makers' business to interfere in private lives in this way. It's quite disgusting what is going on in places like Alabama. If the people who run Alabama believe, personally, that abortion is wrong, fine. However they should absolutely not turn their personal beliefs into the kind of authoritarianism that now holds sway in that part of the USA.



Absolutely, that's what these people are motivated by. Plus, I suspect, in the case of the people who run some of these Republican states, a hatred of liberals and liberalism and a desire to wage war on any cause associated with liberalism.

I do seriously wonder whether the USA should split in two, given it's so polarised, and there is a clear geographical pattern to that polarisation. Have the liberal west-coast and east-coast states as one country, and the conservative southern and midwestern states as another. In the latter case, Trump can, if he desires, have the right to stand for more than two terms, which would doubtless make him president for life.

There would of course need to be FoM between the two countries.

Splitting the US in two is a recipe for a civil war - its happened before !.

Maybe the old hatchet is yet to be buried ?.

Isn't that just the joy of democracy? The people of Alabama have elected politicians who have made it pretty clear what policies they would enact are. As seen in some other states, if the people want a different outcome they can vote accordingly.

This is the price for democracy. The majority ending up with not what they want is a fact of life. Democracy means people can complain and compromise.

 

[Purple Train]

@DynamicSpirit has explained pretty well the rationale behind anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage points of view (or, to put it another way, everyone I've spoken to who has those views has explained them in virtually those words!)

Not being a Christian, maybe I'm not qualified to make a dissenting argument, but some of Trump's recent statements would seem to me to be highly blasphemous to any believer with the claim that God had brought him to earth specifically to act as a saviour of the human race. I'll just say the man should be sectioned indefinitely in a secure institution for the sake of that humanity, if not the man himself.

That's my point of view as well. Personally, I think he's about as much a believer as I am a rugby prop, but if he'll give the Evangelical lobby the power they crave, I don't think they're particularly inclined to care. (That's not to say that I believe that there aren't any Evangelicals who believe certain of his statements are blasphemous/don't support him, but the general structure and mindset of the Evangelical church, in my experience, doesn't lend itself well to dissenting voices being heard - though that might simply be a biased exaggeration given my personal beliefs.)

A lot of these people do not even want to allow an exception for medical reasons. They are willing to put both mother and child in danger. It's not about life, it's about power and it's about control. This entrenchment behind their beliefs is not only irrelevant because other people might have different believes (or even better: care about the facts), it is also dishonest.

Indeed, such people are all about power. But, as you said, it isn't indicative of everyone who holds socially conservative points of view - it's simply the ones who, by being more extreme, court the most publicity. I wouldn't believe for a moment that it's the majority.

Indeed, only it shouldn't be like that.

The first two things Christians should be doing is "love the lord your God", and then "love your neighbour as yourself" (basically anything else shouldn't override these).

By enforcing rules which being harm to people (banning abortions outright, not putting in place systems to limit those who may not be suitable to own a gun, etc.) they fail.

By dehumanising groups (non American, non white, non male, non rich, non straight, etc.) they fail.

By not having compassion to other citizens ("I don't want my tax to fund..." be that healthcare for the "undeserving", rehabilitation for those who have - for example - a drug problem or mental health issues and want help, social secretary so there's a safety net incase things do wrong - but that will mean that some will take advantage of it) they fail.

By not having compassion on others (I don't want people who may well be at risk of death if they stay where they happened to be born living here - where the primary reason that most people are there are due to the accident of where they were born, or we should look after our own first - the reality is often they don't want to do that either, as they will be classed as undeserving, see above) they fail.

Fortunately (and I say this as a Christian), we have fewer people who are "Christian" by birth in the UK than there is the US. Which means that our politicians are less likely to want to look for their vote.

Communism is a good idea, other than people are greedy, Capitalism is a good idea other than greedy, a Christian nation is a good idea other than people are greedy. Where greed (be that for money or power or control) is what is motivating someone (Trump is a textbook case) then they are wholly unsuitable for office.

The problem is that too many like what's being offered, not aware that they too could fall outside of the ideal for the "in" group and could find themselves being oppressed or persecuted or denied access to government provision. Especially when, for example, America doesn't become great after "dealing" with immigration, who's next on the list for the problems in the country? Can you be sure that they are going to stop at that group, or are there another 10 groups, 100, groups? At what point could you be at risk of being in one of those groups?

I was going to try and write something similar but decided I was too brain-dead to do it in the evening: thanks, you've said it far, far better than I could! The one thing I would add, however, is that how you interpret those commandments depends a lot on your definition of love (which sounds quite silly like that but I do believe that the meaning of the word has shifted/is shifting) - so I could see how, reading from that, you could get both extremely liberal laws (under the guise that love is giving people what they want), and Alabama-like laws (under the guise that love is saving people from damnation). Not that I think that that's the rationale behind the Alabama laws, and nor would I agree with it or its purported purpose if it was, but I could understand at least some people genuinely believing that (and, for the record, I would disagree with the first interpretation also).

Also, as a side note about your comments on taxes - it genuinely astonishes me how many Americans seem not to have read Luke 20:20-26.

 

[CS2447]

In the latest Primary in Washington out of 700000 voters D. Trump received 676 votes Nikki Haley 1274 o.k its a solid Democratic state , but his jury Pool is drawn from this demographic, i think The Republicans will leach more Women's Votes than Biden will lose due to his mishandling of Middle East , still a car crash though , but we can't help
looking. We are a mini version of all this , i regularly listen to Legal AF and The Meidas Touch so you know where im leaning towards

 

[bahnause]

Isn't that just the joy of democracy? The people of Alabama have elected politicians who have made it pretty clear what policies they would enact are. As seen in some other states, if the people want a different outcome they can vote accordingly.

Very often they are anything but clear about what they stand for. They describe themselves as lifesavers, while in fact they endanger lives. They describe the laws they enact as a reasonable compromise, that allows for exceptions. In fact, the first court case makes it clear that this is not the case. These same members of Congress also have no problem bragging about the local positive effects of new infrastructure legislation in their district, that they opposed just months before by voting against it.

 

[jon0844]

A lot of these people do not even want to allow an exception for medical reasons. They are willing to put both mother and child in danger. It's not about life, it's about power and it's about control. This entrenchment behind their beliefs is not only irrelevant because other people might have different believes (or even better: care about the facts), it is also dishonest.

This is the same group of people who seem to believe that women should go back to being homemakers, or 'Tradwives'. I've seen a number of videos where they have blonde, white, women wearing 1950s style dresses clearly portraying an image of 'the good old days'.

I actually do think it's sad that these days anyone with children will almost certainly need both parents to work to get by, and that obviously makes things incredibly tough for a single parent, but you can't just make women stay home to look after all the kids they need to keep having (to stop the great replacement theory, which also means it really is only white women who should be having babies) - especially when wages can be so incredibly low, or jobs are being eradicated by technology.

It is indeed about putting women in their place, and that's certainly not on the board of a big corporation. Any firm that does that is clearly woke and virtue signalling, and any issues with the company must be blamed on them - or any other 'diverse' hiring, because - apparently - minorities are only hired to tick boxes, not because of their actual skills.

I know we have another thread for Elon Musk, but it does seem as if we're about to see some sort of announcement by Elon that he will back Trump - and perhaps help fund Trump's election campaign legal bills in return for tax breaks, more Government subsidies, more relaxation of worker protections and healthcare etc.

 

[najaB]

Isn't that just the joy of democracy? The people of Alabama have elected politicians who have made it pretty clear what policies they would enact are. As seen in some other states, if the people want a different outcome they can vote accordingly.

Except that the system is rigged. The GOP has gerrymandered the voting maps such that in many states it is almost impossible for Democrats to win despite having more votes.

 

[gg1]

This is the same group of people who seem to believe that women should go back to being homemakers, or 'Tradwives'. I've seen a number of videos where they have blonde, white, women wearing 1950s style dresses clearly portraying an image of 'the good old days'.

Also the same people who see no irony whatsoever in describing themselves as pro-life whilst being opposed to gun control and universal healthcare.

 

[ainsworth74]

Except that the system is rigged. The GOP has gerrymandered the voting maps such that in many states it is almost impossible for Democrats to win despite having more votes.

To be fair the Democrats have also done an excellent job gerrymandering the electoral maps of states where they hold sway as well.

Crackers or course that this seems neigh on impossible to challenge (with a few honourable exceptions) no matter the colour of the party doing the fixing. Feels like something the Federal Government at the very least should be allowed have an interest in...

 

[nw1]

Isn't that just the joy of democracy? The people of Alabama have elected politicians who have made it pretty clear what policies they would enact are. As seen in some other states, if the people want a different outcome they can vote accordingly.

There have to be limits though. Politicians should not have carte blanche to implement what a small majority of people want, if what a small majority of people want is morally unacceptable. What if a majority of Alabama voters wanted the death penalty for gay sex, for instance? Should the people in charge of Alabama blindly wave it through, or is part of the role of a politician to judge what things are acceptable and what are not? I would argue the latter. People's wishes need to be sanity checked. I'm sure we'd all like food prices to be slashed by 90%, doesn't mean the politicians should just wave through a law to force shops to do this through regardless of the consequences.

There are, thus, thresholds for what should be enacted and what should not. Personally, I would classify blanket bans on abortion - including in cases of rape - beyond the realm of acceptability whether (say) 50.1% of the Alabama population want it or not. What about the (say) 49.9% that oppose, should they have their rights steamrollered away? Others' thresholds on what is acceptable and what is not may differ.

And it's even more complex than that. It might be that the Republican rulers of Alabama, who enacted such things, got in on say 35% of the vote, accounting for non-voters. So 65% of voters did not vote for a party who wanted to make abortion illegal in all cases.

 

[JamesT]

There have to be limits though. Politicians should not have carte blanche to implement what a small majority of people want, if what a small majority of people want is morally unacceptable. What if a majority of Alabama voters wanted the death penalty for gay sex, for instance? Should the people in charge of Alabama blindly wave it through, or is part of the role of a politician to judge what things are acceptable and what are not? I would argue the latter. People's wishes need to be sanity checked. I'm sure we'd all like food prices to be slashed by 90%, doesn't mean the politicians should just wave a law to force shops to do this through regardless of the consequences.

There are, thus, thresholds for what should be enacted and what should not. Personally, I would classify blanket bans on abortion - including in cases of rape - beyond the realm of acceptability whether (say) 50.1% of the Alabama population want it or not. What about the (say) 49.9% that oppose, should they have their rights steamrollered away? Others' thresholds on what is acceptable and what is not may differ.

And it's even more complex than that. It might be that the Republican rulers of Alabama, who enacted such things, got in on say 35% of the vote, accounting for non-voters. So 65% of voters did not vote for a party who wanted to make abortion illegal in all cases.

Who decides what is morally acceptable?
You are right that we elect politicians to interpret what the correct course of action should be. The politicians of Alabama have decided that the rights of the unborn child not to be killed outweigh those of the mother. Many other countries have decided similarly, are they all immoral? Pretty much every country has some sort of restriction on abortion.
The general drift over time has been towards a more liberal stance on social issues, which the politicians have sometimes been ahead of the public on. For example the ending of the death penalty in the UK when the majority of the population probably still supported it. But I wouldn't take it as an absolute.
You talk of thresholds, but doesn't that depend on whether it's a positive or negative change? ie allowing or banning. I think it was mentioned in the Dobbs decision that the common law position was that abortion is murder, so therefore there needs to be a positive law to allow it. To follow your rules, does there need to be a supermajority for that?
I believe that morality overall has to come from society, which as it stands is best expressed through the democratic system.

 

[najaB]

To be fair the Democrats have also done an excellent job gerrymandering the electoral maps of states where they hold sway as well.

Oh, I'm not claiming that the Democrats are lily white, but some of the maps that the GOP have managed to get through are pretty damned shocking. Districts that have sections that are one street wide, for example, in order to join two heavily Democrat-leaning areas into one, so that there can be two, smaller, mainly white GOP voting areas beside them.

The politicians of Alabama have decided that the rights of the unborn child not to be killed outweigh those of the mother. Many other countries have decided similarly, are they all immoral? Pretty much every country has some sort of restriction on abortion.

Which would be fine if we were talking about children. But we're talking about blastocysts, not even properly formed foetuses.

 

[Silenos]

I believe that morality overall has to come from society, which as it stands is best expressed through the democratic system.

Which would be fine if either we or the Americans had one.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh, I'm not claiming that the Democrats are lily white, but some of the maps that the GOP have managed to get through are pretty damned shocking. Districts that have sections that are one street wide, for example, in order to join two heavily Democrat-leaning areas into one, so that there can be two, smaller, mainly white GOP voting areas beside them.

Absolutely, we agree on that! If anyone isn't sure what we're referring to Wikipedia has some excellent examples of Congressional districts that have been Gerrymandered to hell and back:

Gerrymandering in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Yankee01]

Indeed, such people are all about power. But, as you said, it isn't indicative of everyone who holds socially conservative points of view - it's simply the ones who, by being more extreme, court the most publicity. I wouldn't believe for a moment that it's the majority.

This becomes one of the problems with a representative democracy. Two major parties, each with their own ideology. The candidates selected, in nearly all cases, must be ideologically pure to win a nomination. There are some mavericks, but those are few and far between.
Going outside of the party base support, you're left with people that do not subscribe to every single tenant of a party's manifesto. That leaves them having to decide which issues are more important to them, and thus sacrificing other positions.

Abortion and gun control tend to fall under this category. Public opinion polls all seem to favour some degree of abortion rights and gun control. In states where its possible for the citizens to collect enough signatures for a direct referendum, bypassing their elected legislatures, abortion rights have passed with a significant majority, including in states that trend red by voting for Trump. With gun control, there also is the roadblock of the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

Though, when it comes to electing representatives, those views don't come across, either because of Gerrymandering, or people simply don't feel strong enough on those issues to rank them above their other positions like on the economy, law enforcement, or border control where they are more closely aligned with the Republicans.

As a standalone issue, laws covering abortion and gun control would be quite a bit different, but that isn't compatible with the current form of government. Plus any notion of compromise or government by consensus does not exist. Its all about the winner taking the spoils.

 

[nw1]

Who decides what is morally acceptable?
You are right that we elect politicians to interpret what the correct course of action should be. The politicians of Alabama have decided that the rights of the unborn child not to be killed outweigh those of the mother. Many other countries have decided similarly, are they all immoral? Pretty much every country has some sort of restriction on abortion.

Which is why there are time restrictions on abortion, and I'm not arguing against those.

But I profoundly disagree with banning - at the most extreme case - the abortion of a one-day-old fertilised egg and certainly imprisoning someone for aborting such a fertilised egg. It's a long, long way from resembling a foetus and feeling pain.

 

[Silenos]

Which is why there are time restrictions on abortion, and I'm not arguing against those.

But I profoundly disagree with banning - at the most extreme case - the abortion of a one-day-old fertilised egg and certainly imprisoning someone for aborting such a fertilised egg. It's a long, long way from resembling a foetus and feeling pain.

However, the decision by the Alabama Supreme Court - and it was the court rather than the politicians - is at least consistent with the view that life begins at fertilisation. It’s the subsequent manoeuvres by Republican politicians worried that those of their base who’d like to avail of IVF will stop supporting them that prove that this is not, for them, a matter of religious principle but rather, as has been said above, about power (and specifically power over women).

 

[najaB]

However, the decision by the Alabama Supreme Court - and it was the court rather than the politicians - is at least consistent with the view that life begins at fertilisation.

To be more accurate, their decision was that personhood starts at fertilisation since both egg and sperm were already alive. This is patently ridiculous since not only is there no brain activity, there aren't even differentiated neural cells at that point. So if you don't even have to have a brain to be considered a person, what does that mean for people who suffer devastating brain injuries that leave them in a permanent, irreversible vegetative state?

It’s the subsequent manoeuvres by Republican politicians worried that those of their base who’d like to avail of IVF will stop supporting them that prove that this is not, for them, a matter of religious principle but rather, as has been said above, about power (and specifically power over women).

That is evident from the fact that innocent babies go straight to heaven in most Christian theologies (at least that's the argument used to excuse God from killing all the babies in the Noahcian Deluge), so surely the aborted babies are actually better off than they would have been if they were born into a life filled with immeasurable injustice and suffering.

 

[brad465]

However, the decision by the Alabama Supreme Court - and it was the court rather than the politicians - is at least consistent with the view that life begins at fertilisation. It’s the subsequent manoeuvres by Republican politicians worried that those of their base who’d like to avail of IVF will stop supporting them that prove that this is not, for them, a matter of religious principle but rather, as has been said above, about power (and specifically power over women).

I look forward to them heavily clamping down on gun rights too if they're pro life.

 

[nw1]

I look forward to them heavily clamping down on gun rights too if they're pro life.

Ah but don't you see, a fertilised egg at the first cell division has more rights than someone of a different race to yourself trespassing on your land!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Ah but don't you see, a fertilised egg at the first cell division has more rights than someone of a different race to yourself trespassing on your land!

Furthermore, remember they might only be being shot dead by mistake .

 

[najaB]

Furthermore, remember they might only be being shot dead by mistake .

And with "Stand your ground" laws as long as you can claim that you were "in fear of your life" then you've no responsibility to de-escalate.

 

[Peter Sarf]

And with "Stand your ground" laws as long as you can claim that you were "in fear of your life" then you've no responsibility to de-escalate.

Oh Gawd......