Integrity. Country First.
Replies to: Integrity. Country First.
“A fascist to the core.”
Amazing that the MAGA cultists can disregard all the warnings of the people closest to Trump in round 1.
In round 2, there will be no guard rails. There will be non-stop assault on law and order, and on the constitutional order.
The country will never be the same.
These pieces of shit can’t say they weren’t warned.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/bob-woodward-book-mark-milley-trump
Who arrested their opponent,believes in centralized govt,suppressed opposing speech,&is antisemitic?
Which party is that again?
Liberalism Rule #1 Accuse others of that which you are/do.
You're like a broken record. You follow the same predictable pattern over, and over, and over again.
Read Government’s factual proffer (pp 2-85) re election interference case.
Ask yourself if such conduct is acceptable for a sitting US President.
Imagine same facts, Democrat President. Would you still regard the prosecution as “political lawfare?”
Ask yourself whether you actually believe in democracy. It appears otherwise.
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0.pdf
The case is horse crap
Right or wrong, Trump and associates believed the election was not honest, and they pursued legal remedies to correct it.
Smith is operating from a premise the elections could not possibly be dishonest and anyone contesting such is automatically guilty of criminal conduct.
Smith is also operating in defiance of the SCOTUS.
(no message)
I just outlined your fascism, and you offer a weaponized govt attack against your enemy as a defense
…which is, of course, ANOTHER example of fascism!!!
Very Jack Smithian of you.
Predictably, you have no defense to Trump’s interference w/ 2020 results.
You prove over and over that you are a lost soul.
I need none since there was none, but Jack Smith is merely a partisan private citizen-NOT a govt rep
…or don’t you follow the decisions of the SCOTUS anymore, counselor?
That’s all bullshit. The republic is not threatened by Kamala. Or any other nominee of any party.
You obfuscate and distract.
But this is a real national crisis. And you are on the bad side.
Sorry.
You fail to refute any of your demonstrated characteristics that define fascism, but you accuse
others of being what you quite literally enbody.
Once again, Liberalism Rule #1…..”Accuse others of that which you do/are.
You are SO predictable. A broken record in fact.
Also, cold, hard fact is quite a bit more than a “distraction” or “obfuscation”.
This is once again an example of Liberalism Rule #14:
“You are going to have to show me a lot more than cold, hard, indisputable facts to get me to change my mind”.
PS - stop throwing the definition of fascism around if you don’t understand it. Unless you think that it can’t apply to you despite your obvious behavior.
That would be Liberalism Rule #2: The rules apply to thee and not me”.
Broken record.
He stated facts.
Can you tolerate different abortion laws in the 50 states?...or are you for centralized government?
Dems did attempt, and are still attempting, to silence free speech, and even to jail political opponents.
Democrats demonstrate FOR Hamas, and call on Israel to stand down. Antisemitic.
You aren't entitled to your own set of facts.
Should any woman, anywhere in the U.S., who is impregnated against her will be forced by government
to carry it to term with no option of abortion?...simple and straight forward question that you've been running from...time to stand for what you believe in.
I don't debate you because you are disingenuous. Everyone knows my position on this.
General Principles
I oppose all forms of aggression. The government's primary job, over all others, is to protect the innocent from aggression, whether it be foreign aggressors (and so we have a military), or domestic aggressors (and so we have police and a justice system and laws regulating aggression). Most people agree with me on this. That is why we have laws that try to restrict homicides, which is a form of aggression. Different punishments are meted out in different states for different types of homicides. It has always been that way, for all types of homicides, until Roe v. Wade. Now, we are back to the original federalist approach, where each state gets to decide what they will prohibit and what they will allow.
Another general principle underlying our common law that everyone usually agrees with is this: We cannot (or should not) remedy a harm to a victim, by causing a greater harm to a bystander, thereby creating a second victim. We let the harm lie where it occurred, rather than causing additional harms to innocent people. This is because it is an aggression to attempt to remedy the harm on the victim by inflicting greater harm on another individual who is entirely innocent...and the job of the government is to help victims, not create victims...to prohibit aggression, not to endorse it. We address the harm by punishing the aggressor, and by providing aid an comfort to the victim. You don't create a second victim by attacking and killing an innocent bystander.
At least, that used to be a principle...I understand that you oppose this principle, and are quite happy to harm innocent bystanders because you have sympathy for the first victims. I get that, I just oppose that as a legitimate theory under common morality (even secular humanist morality) and under legitimate law.
Applying These Principles to the Issue of Abortion
The innocent unborn do not deserve to be killed, however they come to be. They are the most innocent of all human beings, and deserve the greatest protection that society can provide. So, I am against abortion of any kind. I support aid and comfort of all kinds to anyone impregnated against their will (and I happily put my money where my mouth is through charity, and I invite you to do so as well). But, aid and comfort to the victim cannot ever include aggression against another innocent party. That would be immoral under any objective standard which (1) values innocent human life, and (2) honors biological science which tells us when we have a human life.
Special Cases Don't Justify the General Case
You and I have tried to discuss your point about women impregnated against their will, and you never engage my points directly. So, I stopped discussing with you, and I reserve the right to not respond to you in the future. Everyone knows your tactics, and me calling them out is no longer required.
Why don't you engage me directly? Because you want to use justifications for abortion in a special and rare case (involuntary impregnation) to justify the general practice of abortion in the other 99.9% of the cases (voluntarily becoming pregnant, and choosing to abort right up to the last second before birth, and possibly even shortly thereafter). If you and I can't even agree on the 99%, why should we discuss the <1%? You won't even accept a compromise where abortion is only allowed in the special case. But you refuse to talk about the 99%, because your position is the same, but you have no logic to support it. Your logic only supports the <1%. You want all abortion justified, by anyone, for any reason, at any time...and in every state and nation, even if the local people don't want it. But, you will only discuss a special case; you refuse to talk about the entire issue...you run and hide whenever I bring it up. So, there is no point in discussing this issue with you. You are not honest in your position.
Thanks very much for engaging...first off, the numbers of forced and coerced pregnancies are not
small, as the linked study shows...here the 'Results' and 'Conclusion' sections...
-----------------
Results:
One in 20 women in the U.S., or over 5.9 million women, experienced a pregnancy from either rape, sexual coercion, or both during their lifetimes. Non-Hispanic Multiracial women experienced a higher prevalence of all three outcomes compared with non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic women. Among victims who experienced pregnancy from rape, 28% experienced a sexually transmitted disease, 66% were injured, and over 80% were fearful or concerned for their safety.
Conclusions:
Pregnancy as a consequence of rape or sexual coercion is experienced by an estimated six million U.S. women. Prevention efforts may include healthcare screenings to identify violence exposure and use of evidence-based prevention approaches to reduce sexual violence.
--------------------
Next, we all know that for Catholics, Pope Francis has not recanted his words from a couple of years ago...i.e. 'The Personhood of a fetus is debated'...and that the Magisterium of the RCC has never taught that it....yet, we all know that the Personhood of a woman is not up for debate.
Continuing on with Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the RCC, while firmly against Killing, has a section (#2309) that allows for "Just Wars", provided certain conditions are met. It's not hard to imagine the numbers of killings that result from a war...including innocents...Note the RCC uses the term "Prudential Judgement" as the underpinning of that teaching...we should discuss its application to the abortion issue.
Looking beyond the RCC, other well established religions...for example Judaism...teach that 'Personhood' does not begin until birth, while others...e.g. Islam and some Protestant sects...say it begins at "Quickening"....therefore, when it comes to government involvement, and our 1st Amendment, it should not choose one religious opinion over another, and based on 50 years of surveys of ALL Americans - including Catholics - consistently, 80-90% of them support the legalization of abortion for what you call 'Rare' events of forced or coerced pregnancies.
With that being said, the "Prudential Judgement" should be what the Supreme Court decided 50 years ago with Roe v. Wade.
You should also know from my previous posts that I share the urgency to reduce the number of abortions, through 1) availability of contraceptives, 2) sex/sexuality education for all ages, and 3) more funding for programs that make it easier for women to decide to carry pregnancies to term.
While we all would like to see a perfect world where every pregnancy is joyfully anticipated, that's not reality, and too many innocent women are physically and mentally traumatized by forced and coerced pregnancies...they should not be ignored...and as evidence shows, they will never let that happen and go back to the days of "Back Alley" abortions which were all too common prior to Roe v Wade.
Your turn...
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10951889/
FBI says there are 16,000 rapes per year. You quote stats of 300,000ish. Reminds me of a quote...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination. "
~Andrew Lang (1844-1912)~
The stats on rape don't actually matter to the morality of this issue, so we need not have a battle of competing statistics. That is a distraction.
The problem with allowing an exception for rape is, of course, that every woman can just allege a rape to get an abortion. It is a huge loophole, through which you intend to justify every abortion, because that is your true goal. Even if I trusted your statistics, that doesn't undermine my previous post in the least. It is morally wrong to kill a bystander to a crime in an attempt to make the victim feel better. Query: If there was some magical way to determine if a pregnancy was caused by rape (or an actual legal process for doing so), would you accept not allowing abortion in non-rape cases? I've asked this before, and I never got an answer.
Your misrepresentation of Pope Francis' statement has been addressed on this board many times. I need not address it again.
You raise the point of just wars. I acknowledge that some homicides can be justified on the basis that they fall short of aggression in some way. A just war is one such example. Defense of home and family is another example. Abortion cannot be justified under this principle. Abortion is pure aggression against an innocent human.
You raise the point of personhood. Any society that attempts to define an acknowledged human being as not a person, to be dis-allowed from equal protection under the law, is not a just and moral society. History is full of examples of this, and injustice against entire groups of people result. You go down a dangerous path, and set a dangerous precedent, to start defining certain humans as full persons, and others as not. Recall that slaves were not full persons; you use the logic of slave holders for your argument. You raise this point in the context of Judaism...and of course, the Jews were victims of this legal theory of personhood in Nazi Germany. I do not accept that argument as morally licit.
The "quickening" is old law and old morality based on old biological science, which did not know about DNA, etc., and had no ability to determine if impregnation had occurred. It is not a theory which is applicable today, where we know that there is an innocent bystander with their own set of DNA, a unique human being. Besides, you disregard that theory, since you want abortion after the quickening. So, it is a distraction to raise that point.
Regarding Roe v. Wade: There is no reason that abortion homicides should be a national right, but self-defense, or defense of home homicides should not also be a national right. Do you support both at the national level?...then pass an Article V Amendment. There is no basis in the Constitution to establish such a right by judicial fiat. Homicides have always been defined by the state legislatures when they don't involve interstate activity. There is no reason to make an exception for abortion.
I'll use your text and respond in italics...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination. "
~Andrew Lang (1844-1912)~
The stats on rape don't actually matter to the morality of this issue, so we need not have a battle of competing statistics. That is a distraction.
Those "Stats" matter to every woman in this country...they represent a threat to their physical and mental well-being...not sure how you rationalize such callousness and disregard to the Immorality inflicted on them
The problem with allowing an exception for rape is, of course, that every woman can just allege a rape to get an abortion. It is a huge loophole, through which you intend to justify every abortion, because that is your true goal. Even if I trusted your statistics, that doesn't undermine my previous post in the least. It is morally wrong to kill a bystander to a crime in an attempt to make the victim feel better. Query: If there was some magical way to determine if a pregnancy was caused by rape (or an actual legal process for doing so), would you accept not allowing abortion in non-rape cases? I've asked this before, and I never got an answer.
So ALL Women are Liars?...is that what I'm hearing? Let's not worry about the millions of women who over their reproductive lifetimes have suffered pregnancies due to rape and/or coercion?...you're one sick dude.
Your misrepresentation of Pope Francis' statement has been addressed on this board many times. I need not address it again.
Translation:..."I can't deny what he said, or its implication, so I'll just ignore it."...Sorry, Ned, but Francis has not recanted that statement, in spite of numerous challenges...and it means "Personhood" of a fetus is not established RCC teaching...meaning that the only Person in this debate is the woman with an un-wanted pregnancy, and the only choice of what to do about it is Hers...not government, which then must assure and not impede the availability of safe means to terminate the pregnancy
You raise the point of just wars. I acknowledge that some homicides can be justified on the basis that they fall short of aggression in some way. A just war is one such example. Defense of home and family is another example. Abortion cannot be justified under this principle. Abortion is pure aggression against an innocent human.
"Just Wars" involve the killing of other Persons, including innocent pregnant women with fetuses, for the purpose of preserving the freedom of people to live their own lives as they so choose...which brings us back to Personhood...the RCC has never taught that a fetus is a person, so forced or coerced pregnancies represent biological attacks on innocent women...i.e. un-debated Persons... who should not have to give up their future lives as a result...they can if they so choose, but it is not the role of government to control that decision
You raise the point of personhood. Any society that attempts to define an acknowledged human being as not a person, to be allowed equal protected under the law, is not a just and moral society. History is full of examples of this, and injustice against entire groups of people result. You go down a dangerous path, and set a dangerous precedent, to start defining certain humans as full persons, and others as not. Recall that slaves were not full persons; you use the logic of slave holders for your argument. You raise this point in the context of Judaism...and of course, the Jews were victims of this legal theory of personhood in Nazi Germany. I do not accept that argument as morally licit.
Again, Pope Francis has shown that the RCC has not determined the Personhood of a fetus...nor have other religions representing billions of people, among them are the Jews, and your deflection to the Holocaust is irrelevant to the issue of abortion...many within that faith continue to believe that Personhood does not begin until birth...fact.
The "quickening" is old law and old morality based on old biological science, which did not know about DNA, etc., and had no ability to determine if impregnation had occurred. It is not a theory which is applicable today, where we know that there is an innocent bystander with their own set of DNA, a unique human being.
Speaking of biological science, upwards of 10-15% of conceptions either never implant or end up as miscarriages...even the RCC has no 'Rites' or recognition of them as Deceased Persons...in fact an untold number never even get noticed. What's the theology on all of those instances?
Regarding Roe v. Wade: There is no reason that abortion homicides should be a national right, but self-defense, or defense of home homicides should not also be a national right. Do you support both at the national level? Moreover, there is no basis in the Constitution to establish such a right by judicial fiat. Homicides have always been defined by the state legislatures when they don't involve interstate activity. There is no reason to make an exception for abortion.
Due to a) the lack of solidarity in ascribing Personhood to a fetus, and b) the numerous forced or coerced pregnancies representing biological attacks on women...not to mention problematic miscarriages the blanket charge of homicide is unwarranted. On the other hand, as we're seeing recently, extreme anti-abortion laws are resulting in totally preventable deaths to women having miscarriages. We've been through all this before Roe v Wade was decided...So long as women are subjected to Un-Wanted pregnancies without the option of legalized abortion wherever women live, there will be deaths from 'Back Alley' abortions and rampant chaos in our society...the solution is "Prudential Judgement"...the same sort of discernment as applied to "Just Wars"
In essence you disregard and give no credence to the rights of the only true Person involved...the Woman...denying her own innocence...and even accusing her of lying...that's not objective reasoning
Your turn...
Link: https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/post-roe-contraceptive-failures-carry-bigger-stakes/
I'm comfortable with my post above, as it stands unrefuted by yours.
Your posts are all sound and fury, yet signifying nothing. Par for the course. As usual, you posted a lot of tangential comments, and rehashed some things that have been disproven. I don't feel the need to respond. I think we are done here.
Another LOL...you are the embodiment of the "Disingenuous" poster...I give you specific responses to
each of. your arguments that are based on documented statements and real data...but what do I get?...Crickets ;-)...you say some of my comments have been disproven...I disagree, so explain why you make such claims...maybe you'll be right...or possibly wrong...let's go through the process to find what's True...sound reasonable?
I'm up for it...how about you?
Somthing to remember for future discussions: Statistics & emotions don't alter morality.
There is no need to bring them up again, as they do not alter the moral calculus. Just because complying with morality is difficult doesn't mean the morality is wrong. That is where you and I differ. You believe morality comes from your political party, and it should be easy, and if we feel bad about the difficulty of compliance, you would rather change the morality than redouble your efforts to comply.
Again, statistics are irrelevant to morality. Your emotions are irrelevant to morality.
All you have to do is return the favor I gave to you by answering each of your points with
unemotional ;-) facts and documented evidence...i.e. Pope Francis' statement that the status of a fetus' Personhood was debated w/in the RCC...which has significant implications, as you should know, for the claim of "homicide" in the abortion issue. IMO, something worth talking about.
Then there's the non-emotional documentation, and very relevant topic from the Catholic Catechism (Section # 2309) dealing with "Just Wars"...i.e. the sanctioned killing of others...seems that should catch your interest and attention as well.
And for good measure the lack of RCC theology and teaching about the status of miscarried fetuses...Note that the RCC has long ago stopped using the term "Limbo"...not sure if you ever experienced that brief attempt to deal with such occurrences...but again relevant to the status of a fetus and Personhood.
Finally, there's the clear lack of any attention by you or the supposed "Pro-Life" adherents to the very real harm being wreaked on millions of women through forced and coerced and totally unwanted pregnancies which are physically and mentally devastating to their lives...nothing...nada, from you.
As I've said before, a woman not an insentient, 'Baby Making Machine' that can be turned on by any random male, leaving her with no choice in the matter, but to accept the outcome...and have government penalize her, along with anyone who tries to help her...should she attempt to deal with this biological attack. If you think this is a 'Gift from God', your theology and morality are totally bogus. The solution...as with "Just Wars"...is to use 'Prudential Judgement' on a case by case basis...by the woman and her doctor, pastor, counselor...to arrive at the decision which is satisfactory...TO HER...and no government intervention...basically what we had with Roe v Wade.
Like it or not, there is MUCH more to talk about when it comes to finding ways to reduce the number of abortions...and you should have remembered the steps I've repeated on this forum. It's no secret that this is a "Hot Button" issue for you...as it should be...and I represent upwards of 80-90% of Americans...and Catholics...when it comes to legalizing abortion "In Some Cases"...so don't walk away...let's talk about how to deal with ALL the cases.
If you can find just one, it must be true and extend to all, eh? Doi.
And please conor, don't be so concrete of thought as to think the actual number of "one" I used is literal.
"The exception does not prove the rule", and adding more to what is still a vast minority does not change that.
That is a common fallacy used by poorly educated minds who are not capable of critical thinking.
"More than 700 national security officials endorse Kamala Harris for president"...
...Just today, fmr Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, called DJT a "Facist to the Core".
Seems to be a trend...that you're having trouble comprehending.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/22/national-security-officials-endorse-harris
Deep state military industrial complex supports Harris, shocking!
(no message)
You have any evidence of that?...the question is rhetorical ;-)
(no message)
I simply reframed your argument.
(no message)
Yes, let's cut off our nose to spite our face
"Threat to democracy" is the biggest load of crap the Democrats have ever come up with.
Yea for blowjobs!
(no message)