DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?)

_{kairosfocus
June 24, 2022

Defending our Civilization, Ethics, Intelligent Design, News Highlights, Politics, rhetoric

3}_{Categories
Defending our Civilization
Ethics
Intelligent Design
News Highlights
Politics
rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Having returned from a shopping trip to Junction, Jamaica [here for 4x bereavement reasons], I noticed news as captioned. I clip:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-overrules-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs/

Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade in Dobbs Decision – Returns Abortion to State Lawmakers
WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding in the Dobbs case that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion and returning the issue of abortion laws and regulations to state legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Supreme Court in Friday’s ~~5-4~~ [–> 6-3] decision:
>>Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return the authority to the people and their elected representatives.>>
Roe was handed down in 1973 in a 7-2 decision, holding that the U.S. Constitution includes a constitutional right to abortion, despite the fact that abortion is not found in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and the nation went more than 180 years without ever noticing it existed. It has been one of the most divisive legal issues in American history.
An early draft of Alito’s opinion leaked in May, the first such leak of a full opinion in the 233-year history of the Supreme Court, leading the left to violent protests, including destroying a pro-life center in Wisconsin, vandalizing churches, and threatening protests at the home of conservatives justices in violation of federal law.
These threats have culminated in what was almost an assassination attempt of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which went seemingly unnoticed by President Joe Biden – who did not speak out to condemn it – and has led to rapid action on a new federal law to protect the justices. The court majority evidently stood firm against the threats and public pressure, overruling Roe and the later revision of Roe in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
With Roe overruled, the issue of abortion now goes back to the states to pass whatever restrictions on abortions the voters of each state choose to adopt.

This is an issue that pivots on life, the first right, and lurking within is, what is law and what may a civil authority legitimately rule as law. DEVELOPING

Comments

KF: JH, confession by projection again; do you understand you are admitting to deceit and to enabling biasing of judges by inquisitions?.
Nope. I have no idea what the hell you are accusing me of. And neither does anyone else. All I know is that we have a difference of opinion. And you opt to demonize me rather than address the actual issues. I am fine with that, but it makes you look like a jerk.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

JH, confession by projection again; do you understand you are admitting to deceit and to enabling biasing of judges by inquisitions?. Ever since the infamous blunders of the Persians [an ever present context and yes most famously in the Bible as lessons for all time], we have learned that laws and rulings must be amendable and replaceable. Yes, not arbitrarily but where cause is there, justice demands changes. Or else for the US the Dred Scott decision would forever obtain. But, you already know that, you are playing at dirty rhetorical, trollish stunts to taint the despised other with slanders. What is material was already highlighted in 219, the Roe and Casey decisions were ill founded constitutionally and as matters of justice. The penumbras, emanations and the like have failed, as Alito laid out in painstaking detail you and others would sweep away in eagerness to extend the blood guilt of mass slaughter of living posterity under false colours of rights etc. The decision returns the matter, per Const, to the states and their people. Obviously, you fear that as the people and their representatives are forced to grapple with this ugly, bloody business, they will stop or greatly restrict the slaughter. Instead of attending to this, you wish to distract, poison and polarise, a confession that you have no answer on the merits but are hell bent on mass slaughter. So, it is sad but unsurprising to see the sorts of dirty stunts in support of further shedding of innocent blood we are seeing. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

VB: What lie? The only lying going on here is by you.
Well, coming from you, I will take it with a mine full of salt.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

“I’m confused.” That’s stating the obvious. “It is OK to lie to the panel interviewing you for a position you don’t yet have?” What lie? The only lying going on here is by you. Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

VB: Omission of what? They were not on the court, there was no case before them. Quit spreading lies.
I’m confused. It is OK to lie to the panel interviewing you for a position you don’t yet have? My atheist, Darwinist, materialist parents taught me otherwise.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

“So, a lie of omission is not a lie.” Omission of what? They were not on the court, there was no case before them. Quit spreading lies. Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Jholo I assume that if you lived in the US you would politically align with the party of death so this whole Roe Wade thing is easily solvable. The party of death holds the super majority so just codify it. Why have they not done so? Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

VB: Neither justice gave straightforward answers about ruling on Roe.
So, a lie of omission is not a lie. Good to know where your values “lie”.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

“And, speaking of “speaking in disregard to truth”:” Pot, kettle , black. Your the one perpetrating lies. “However, as the New York Times noted, neither justice explicitly said that Roe was a settled law that they would uphold. Neither justice gave straightforward answers about ruling on Roe. Justice Kavanaugh declined to directly answer whether the decision was “correct law.” He said at one point that the case was “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.” Justice Gorsuch followed a similar tack. He refused to say how he would rule on Roe, noting that the decision was “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court that had been reaffirmed.” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/aoc-calls-for-impeachment-of-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh-for-lying-under-oath/ https://www.breitbart.com/news/what-gop-nominated-justices-said-about-roe-to-senate-panel/ Vividvividbleau_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

JH at 428, Only truth has value, not opinions. What can be shown to be true is true, opinions, not so much. I think you substitute opinions for beliefs in this case.relatd_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Jh at 426, If someone lied then it should be dealt with. Back to the topic. A woman is not using "health care" when an abortion occurs. Abortion is not healthy for the baby. Only an ectopic pregnancy that threatens a mother's life is a consideration.relatd_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Translation of KF@427: The first duty to truth is objective and inviolate unless the lie supports my personal opinion.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

JH, projection. That they resort to this instead of actually refuting the Alito argument on points is telling. Suppose one were to hold the same about the three dissenters, it just goes nowhere. The precedents of courts are not absolute, and what holds the weight is balance on merits. If you can soundly argue that Alito et al ruled incorrectly rather than on merits, then that would be something. That this sort of destructive, accusatory stunt comes up instead is confession by projection to the despised other. KF PS, try the summary in 219 above https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/developing-the-us-supreme-court-reverses-roe-v-wade-is-it-cry-havoc/#comment-759305kairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

And, speaking of “speaking in disregard to truth”:
Democratic Reps Call on Senate to Declare That Supreme Court Justices Lied Under Oath in Confirmation Hearings
JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Relatd, truth says of what is, that it is; and, of what is not, that it is not. {Ari, Met 1011b] Accurate description of reality, which immediately makes reliable access to truth -- warranted, credibly true belief -- vital. That also requires right reason, to have credible warrant. Those who have tried to deny objective [so, warranted] moral knowledge or for that matter knowledge in any distinct field, end up asserting a knowledge claim regarding the field, a negative one. They refute themselves. Having a sound body of knowledge confers legitimate confidence to act, decide, teach, correct error etc. Those who have instead swallowed crooked yardsticks on such topics, will resent correction, viewing it as oppressive, even the correction of a naturally straight and accurate plumb line. Indeed, it seems now many want to brand the US Supreme Court as sexist, racist and to be curbed by being put under the UN. The same UN of Zionism is racism and Israel is an apartheid state. All this, to continue a policy of mass killing of our living posterity. I hold this, a live illustration of the warping effect of blood guilt leading to cognitive dissonance and confession by projection to the despised other. It is particularly interesting that we are not seeing cogent answer to the Alito argument, no constitutionally sound warrant, back to the states. KFkairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

JH at 422, How then shall we live? I can point to the Bible. Others just point to themselves. In your case, I think you should realize that the nature of truth can be known, and it is not derived from solely human sources.relatd_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

JH, there you go again. Meanwhile, you are implicitly appealing to my failure to fulfill duties to truth, right reason and warrant. The branch on which we all sit effect gets you again. It would be funny but untruth is the foundation of injustice, here the worst mass slaughter in history. KF PS, we both know, full well, the rhetorical impact of your statement as cited.kairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

KF: JH, again, notice your attempt to deny knowable moral truth and to replace with opinions.
That humans have things that we call moral values is a truth. It can’t be denied that we all have deeply held values that we try to follow and that we hope others would follow. It is the source of these values where we differ. I believe they are the result of early teaching, reinforcement, feedback, reasoning and experience. The fact that most of us share many of the same values (eg, avoid violence, don’t steal, be polite, etc) simply means that we have all arrived at the same conclusion with regards to our desire to live in a social setting. But there is no evidence that these values are derived externally from the human condition.
Next, simply by putting the words together, “Homosexuality and premarital sex are no more harmful than going to church” — cf JH, Bechley thread, 963, July 10, 2022 at 7:20 am — implied precisely the association and comparison I pointed to.
Then, I dare say, you are not reading for context. The subject was the harm of homosexuality and premarital sex. The other commenter responded with “STDs”. Which is true. There is the risk of Infection with unprotected sexual activity. I simply pointed out that there was also the risk of infection by going to church. Both of which are simply factual statements. That you read more into it than was intended says more about you than it does about me.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Article headline from today's New York Times: "Is It an Embryo, a Fetus or an Unborn Child?" Let's see. My translation: [said with a Brooklyn accent] We got no idea what's goin' on in there. Could be anything. And some believe we're living in "modern" times. General request: Someone send the New York Times some ultrasounds.relatd_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

JH at 417, Sorry, the "everybody's doing it thinking" ignores standards. Standards of human sexual conduct. The "I'll get pleasure however I can" is barbaric and pagan. Human beings need to be civilized not, "Hey man, if it feels good do it" That is ALL you're promoting. I suggest you stop now. It's not civil or civilized. Back to the "imposing" crap? Again? It's like saying I can reach through this computer screen and actually talk to you instead of just typing on a keyboard. You sound just like the Hippies who had nothing but anger and confrontation when anyone questioned their lifestyle. STOP IT. JUST STOP IT.relatd_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

PPS, After Alcibiades and after defeat in the Peloponnesian war, Plato warns:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all[--> notice the reduction to zero] in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . this is actually an infamous credo of nihilism . . . also, it reeks of cynically manipulative lawless oligarchy . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

JH, again, notice your attempt to deny knowable moral truth and to replace with opinions. Next, simply by putting the words together, "Homosexuality and premarital sex are no more harmful than going to church" -- cf JH, Bechley thread, 963, July 10, 2022 at 7:20 am -- implied precisely the association and comparison I pointed to. I note to you the chaos caused by the undermining of confidence in knowable moral truth, its growth due to evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers, and that this was noted on by Plato in The Laws Bk X 2360 years ago, it is nothing new. The real problem is not the list of popular sexual disordered conduct now moving on to attempts to destroy marriage and family or even recognition of our two complementary sexes through relativistic, nominalist redefinition into meaninglessness, but the underlying undermining of moral government starting with first duties/laws. Once that is addressed, we can begin to restore order and recognise that one of the onward effects, mass slaughter of our living posterity at will, is a horror that needs to be corrected. The anticivilisational, misanthropic consequences of the disorders of moral government, sadly, speak for themselves. KF PS, let us put back a little Algebra on the table, that we may understand that as with any other reasonably distinct domain of thought and action, it is undeniable that there are objective, warranted, knowable moral truths. Indeed, this is a first moral truth:
Objective moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1
[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]
However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.
So, it is time to fix the root problem, and then correct the chaos and harm that flow from that damage. Ruse, Wilson, Provine et al, and behind you Schicklegruber, Wells, Darwin, Galton -- yes, eugenics lurks here -- Spencer and co, we are looking at you.kairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

KF: Your loaded comparison (and by now habitual pushing of sexual disordered conduct) would be sadly amusing, if it were not instead inadvertently revealing of the underlying moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies
You claim that premarital sex, homosexuality, transgendered and masturbation are sexual disordered conduct. I understand that this is your opinion but the majority of people don’t share your opinion. Imposing your opinion on others is no more valid than me imposing mine on others.
There is a reason why you compared promiscuity or fornication, sexual perversities and church going.
STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! I did not compare promiscuity, fornication and sexual perversion with going to church. I was simply pointing out that you can be infected by disease through sexual activity and through social activities like going to church. And that there are means of preventing both without abstaining from sexual activity or church attendance.JHolo_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

JH: Your loaded comparison (and by now habitual pushing of sexual disordered conduct) would be sadly amusing, if it were not instead inadvertently revealing of the underlying moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. There is a reason why you compared promiscuity or fornication, sexual perversities and church going. Likewise, there is a reason why you have tried to suggest that there is no deep rooted issue with killing our living posterity in the womb at will, and more. That reason needs to be pointed out and challenged, as it goes to the heart of the ongoing moral collapse and rise of lawlessness and nihilism in our civilisation. It is thus first relevant to expose some underlying evolutionary materialistic thinking by highlighting Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in their notorious 1991 essay, “The Evolution of Ethics”:
The time has come to take seriously the fact
[--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc. and as the ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which undergirds the perception of "fact" is an imposed, question-begging, self-refuting necessarily false assertion, not a fact]
that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again [--> why, isn't that a disguised "OUGHT," the very thing being trashed?] especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ [--> this speculation improperly dressed up as fact directly affects ethics, with implications for the first duties of reason] The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [--> Yes, they are utterly unaware of how such undermines the credibility of reason thus their own rationality, by imposing grand delusion and undermining the moral government that drives how responsible rationality works] [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.]
Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological impositions, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.
So, the sorts of arguments you have raised are of a piece, all reflect the moral bankruptcy of dominant ideologies in our civilisation. A moral bankruptcy epitomised by the loud objections to anything that might stem the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity that just in the USA has reached 63+ millions. You objected above to nazi comparisons, the reality is that is the path we are embarking on. Basically, globally, where the toll is 1.4+ billion and rising at about a million per week. For shame! As well, they yet again reflect the branch on which we all sit first duties and first built in law that once we restore willingness to recognise, offers a path to sound reformation. Yes, I speak of our first duties,
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
Perhaps, it is time to think again and change our ways. KFkairosfocus_{July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

"All because I share the view of the majority of the citizens of the US" JH, You and we know that's not the reason (majority or not is irrelevant). You are going to have to face up to the issue someday. Might as well be today. Andrewasauber_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

JH at 411, Straight from the Leftist handbook. I'm a victim. I've been called names! I don't believe the Media. They lie. They are promoting Leftist/Liberal causes. If those polls are true, it is because Leftist liars have lied convincingly and brainwashed the people. Get with reality. Do you think no one except politicians believe the truth? If you do then I will tell you the truth. There are still many people in the United States who reject lies. Who do not blindly follow politicians or the liars in the Media. Romans 1:24 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves," Romans 1 :25 "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."relatd_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

PS, when your speech and enabled behaviour are misanthropic, in all prudence we can and should take due note. There can be no valid right to take the life of another at will, and from conception on the unborn child is not like a fingernail to be pared at will, s/he is a fresh, distinct individual. It is sad that this has to be pointed out, we here see crooked yardstick thinking that dehumanises and would kill at will the targetted other. So, no, it is not how dare those awful Christians call me names, it is time for you to face the awful reality of 1.4 billion of our living posterity slaughtered under colour of law over the past 50 or so years, currently growing at another million per week.kairosfocus_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

JH, misattributed. I note, the dehumanisation game escalates without natural control; abortion is a kind of euthanasia, infanticide follows, general euthanasis comes after; all reflect the rise of fundamental amorality due to want of a frame that can acknowledge moral knowledge, leading to nihilism. Misanthropy. KFkairosfocus_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

So far in this thread I have been called a liar, a racist, a misogynist, a Nazi, a hypocrite, sick, and a misanthropist. All because I share the view of the majority of the citizens of the US, including a significant portion of Christians. It seems like the misanthropy label is a case of the accuser applying a label to what he sees in the mirror.JHolo_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

"Who is advocating to end the life of an innocent human?" JH, You are, Sherlock. Andrewasauber_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply