Is everyone just stunned that we’ve stepped back 50 years in time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

He’s 72

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This fight needs to be fought all over again by us and our sons and daughters. Teach them how to fight back.

Agreed. I have to be honest that I didn’t expect Roe to be overturned like this a couple of years ago. This sc action tells me that women’s rights should never be taken for granted. Something I’ll be teaching my daughter and also will keep in mind while voting. Somehow women’s rights are always up for debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. 1. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. 2. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that 3. so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

1. False. Shall we name the liberal, religious presidents?
2. If you’re speaking of your party here. You might want to retract this statement.
3. Who now is falling for Russian propoganda, QAnon, Proud Boys, Oathkeepers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

He’s 72

Oh goddammit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

But not with these new anti choice zealots on the court. Women need to get some representation for their basic rights back on the court. Switch out these old men with some people with respect for women and change it back to a court that will stand up for us

We are screwed because we have to wait for several of the rwnj justices to die

Well, Thomas is 80 so at least there’s that.

He’s 72

Oh goddammit.

He’s actually 74.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

Fundamentally the Supreme Court wants to advance Christianity with these rulings.

[Anonymous]

Rapist now get to pick the mother of their children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

When I was in school there were prayers offered over the pa system. Today?

This whole stirring up the pot is nothing more than an attempt to promote political agendas. And given the fact Justice Ginsberg questioned R v W as she did along the same lines as the ruling was handed down recently, along with all the other challenges and questions over the years, shows me that it was a slippery slope to begin with. If you read the history, the Washington Post had a very good write up about that recently, then you see that even in 1973 they had deep questions as to the actions they wanted to take but weren't certain of the foundation of the argument and the eventual outcome. One stark point was Blackman questioning when it stopped being a fetus and became a child. He felt after the first trimester that would be the case.

Back to the 50 year thing...my daughters and granddaughters are far better off, with greater protections and potential than was in place 50 years ago. And no way do I see a decision related to R v W being essentially handed back to the states changing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

When I was in school there were prayers offered over the pa system. Today?

This whole stirring up the pot is nothing more than an attempt to promote political agendas. And given the fact Justice Ginsberg questioned R v W as she did along the same lines as the ruling was handed down recently, along with all the other challenges and questions over the years, shows me that it was a slippery slope to begin with. If you read the history, the Washington Post had a very good write up about that recently, then you see that even in 1973 they had deep questions as to the actions they wanted to take but weren't certain of the foundation of the argument and the eventual outcome. One stark point was Blackman questioning when it stopped being a fetus and became a child. He felt after the first trimester that would be the case.

Back to the 50 year thing...my daughters and granddaughters are far better off, with greater protections and potential than was in place 50 years ago. And no way do I see a decision related to R v W being essentially handed back to the states changing that.

Well, the blood of all the women who will die is all over your hands. Human/civil rights should not depend on being the daughter/granddaughter of the privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

When I was in school there were prayers offered over the pa system. Today?

This whole stirring up the pot is nothing more than an attempt to promote political agendas. And given the fact Justice Ginsberg questioned R v W as she did along the same lines as the ruling was handed down recently, along with all the other challenges and questions over the years, shows me that it was a slippery slope to begin with. If you read the history, the Washington Post had a very good write up about that recently, then you see that even in 1973 they had deep questions as to the actions they wanted to take but weren't certain of the foundation of the argument and the eventual outcome. One stark point was Blackman questioning when it stopped being a fetus and became a child. He felt after the first trimester that would be the case.

Back to the 50 year thing...my daughters and granddaughters are far better off, with greater protections and potential than was in place 50 years ago. And no way do I see a decision related to R v W being essentially handed back to the states changing that.

Well, the blood of all the women who will die is all over your hands. Human/civil rights should not depend on being the daughter/granddaughter of the privileged.

Nicely worded but reminds me of an empty pinata.

As to the last sentence, we have laws to cover that but alas we live in an imperfect nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I am stunned that people don’t remember that both Obama and Biden promised to codify right to abortion in federal law.

Executive branch and legislative branch and still wouldn’t do it.

Oh well.

Can you seriously stop w/ the false outrage. Please be a grown up and accept that one of our dems is from W VA and one is a psycho idiot lady from AZ. You can say we have the legislative branch all you want, but your lack of nuance is really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rapist now get to pick the mother of their children

Christ - that’s some dark phrasing. And 100% true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian [sic] propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

When you say "religious people" you are excluding Americans that are religious and practice religions outside of Christianity. You do realize that Buddhism, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, and other religions practiced here do have more open views on abortion, and don't necessarily outlaw or forbid them as Christians have done.

Perhaps it's you that needs expand your bubble and realize that religion in America is not limited to Christianity. Although, based on this Supreme Court, that no longer seems the case.

You are wrong. When I wrote religious people, I meant religious people.

Jews aren't religious? Or do you believe that they have to vote in line with Christianity, instead of Jewish beliefs?

Many muslims do not support abortion especially after 120 days. Generally Hindus do not suppprt abortion either. Buddhism actually teaches away from abortion though many Buddhists seem to support it. On the flip side many liberal christians support abortion-christians are not monolithic on this. And many individual jews do not support it-they are not monolithic either. Also abortion is not the ony issue. Regardless everyone has a right to vote in accordance with their own values- whether those values stem from their faith or not, and whether their values align with those of the liberal platform or not.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2022/6/24/what-six-american-religious-sub-groups-think-about-abortion
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/

Yeah, no. You presented the religious and liberals as two separate groups, as if liberals cannot be religious, and the religious cannot be liberal.

Bullsh!t.

The post clearly says "some liberals". And it is clear from the many liberals bashing christianity and other religions on this forum that some liberals think religious people should only vote in accordance with their own values if their values are in alignment with the liberal platform.