- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Alabama IVF law is bad law.
- Thread starter ColdHardTruth
- Start date
Credence
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 14,074
- Reaction score
- 21,257
- Location
- Long Island NY
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course it is bad law and unfortunately many of the red states are interjecting religion into legislation and it is just plain wrong.
They are extorting and distorting religion
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Which is why those states need to be subject to extreme federal oversight.
Credence
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 14,074
- Reaction score
- 21,257
- Location
- Long Island NY
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yea but what happens when SCOTUS does the same thing?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 5,334
- Reaction score
- 5,145
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is a reason the Republican Party targeted the state legislatures and the judiciary. What better way to push an agenda than by controlling the mechanisms….
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That is unlikely.
After what happened after Roe v. Wade, they have no desire to make that mistake again.
Thomas is on his way out anyway.
If the statute states that life begins at conception then it follows the law. Its impacts of course are substantial.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
This judgement is based on the religious beliefs of that justice.
That is inappropriate and is absolutely grounds for his removal.
What does the statute say?
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 21,055
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,730
- Reaction score
- 51,811
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That's exactly what was said about the Civil Rights Act before it was passed.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The judge said laws need to be based in the bible. That is an open admission that he did not follow the law.
He needs to be disbarred and removed from the bench.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 8,343
- Reaction score
- 19,004
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Watching this live on CNN right now, Alabama is fighting back.
For a party that claims to be pro-life, IVF is as pro-life as you can get!
Most folks can conceive for free.
For a party that claims to be pro-life, IVF is as pro-life as you can get!
Most folks can conceive for free.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
separation of church and state simply means not having a favored national church. Imposing Christian morals as secular law that all are mandated to follow regardless of one’s religious beliefs is not violation of the first amendment. The government can’t make you engage in religious practice or be a certain denomination, but on a moral issue like IVF or Abortion Christian values can guide what behaviors the government allows or does not allow and it’s not a violation of any right you have
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No, IVF is not pro-life. It involves creating many lives for the purpose of destroying them once one is successfully implanted, it also makes unique human persons who are suspended in limbo for years in freezers.
And the whole purpose of IVF is to upend the natural order where a man and woman come together and engage in the marital act to become one flesh and create new life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The civil rights act has basically usurped the constitution as a new constitution because it allows the government unlimited powers to make unequal things equal somehow
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's a 1st Amendment violation'
Yes, it is.
Yes, he does. He violated the 1st Amendment and attempted to create theocracy.
DO NOT defend him.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yeah, and when a zealot makes finding and then openly says laws should be based on the bible, he is doing exactly that. He is attempting to force HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of the population. This is a 1st Amendment violation.
No, his values ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be part of the decision. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment. His religion is not the law. By his own admission, he stated that he believed law should be made based on the bible. This is a 1st Amendment violation.
His religion ends where the law begins. He is NOT allowed to legislate or rule based on his religion.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No he’s not. Even if the criminal code were entirely based on the Bible that is not forcing religious beliefs. The government can’t make you practice religion or believe in it, however they can determine acts to be bad for society and punish you for committing those acts
Yes they can.
No it’s not.
He didn’t make his religion the law. The law already states it’s a civil fort to kill an unborn child in Alabama
No it’s not.
Again, this is not correct. You’re just repeating the same nonsense. No of the people who drafted the first amendment would agree with your interpretation of it. It was not intended to effect the values of the public being legislated into law, it was intended to deal with sectarian problems stemming from European countries where different churches were officially sponsored by the government
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
WRONG.
He is violating the 1st Amendment. He CANNOT rule by his beliefs and that is EXACTLY what he did.
No, they cannot. It's a 1st Amendment violation. The state cannot have a religion. This decision is based on his Christian beliefs and, in effect, creates a state religion.
Yes, it is.
A fertilized egg is NOT a child. He made that call based on his religion.
WRONG.No it’s not.
Again, this is not correct. You’re just repeating the same nonsense. No of the people who drafted the first amendment would agree with your interpretation of it. It was not intended to effect the values of the public being legislated into law, it was intended to deal with sectarian problems stemming from European countries where different churches were officially sponsored by the government
It was built to prevent the state from having a religion. This was designed to prevent tyranny.
By ruling the way he did, by stating laws should be based on the bible, he made his religion the law. This is a first Amendment violation that needs to cost him his license and his seat. The right-wing IS NOT going to legislate their religious beliefs. If they don't like it, they can leave the country.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The first amendment doesn’t even address this
It states the federal government cannot establish one as the national church
No, it doesn’t.
Alabama has a state law stating a “fertilized egg” (which is in fact a child) is a child. This is a secular law
Civil liability for causing a death is not tyranny
An opinion protected by the first amendment
No he didn’t.
It is not a violation of the first amendment to establish torts
The entire purpose of politics is to legislate moral beliefs into the law
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It also applies to the states. There is no state religion allowed.. federal or state.
Yes, it does. By making a ruling based on his religious beliefs he created a de facto state religion. He chose one religion over the rest and ruled by it. That is not appropriate, and it is an ABSOLUTE violation of the first amendment.
That law was created by religious zealots for religious zealots. A fertilized egg IS NOT A CHILD. It is a blob cells that has not developed. The egg in question is in cryostasis and is NOT DEVELOPING.
Making rules based on religion is tyranny. Keep your religion out of the court room, out of government office, and to yourself.
He is a a judge. He is NOT ALLOWED to rule by his religion. That is what he did. He showed his anti-American, pro-religious bias. He is NOT suitable to sit on the bench.
Yes, he did.
When they are based on religion, yes, it is.
The purpose of politics IS NOT to legislate religious beliefs and that is what happened in Alabama.