[paradox]

You've only explained how someone can come to believe that abortion is wrong. The word understand, which I'm glad you used, is what's lacking in clarity. To understand implies you know why.

As Christians we would believe that it comes from God.

People, in general, don't really argue that it's acceptable to harm children. Those who argue in favor of abortion do so by arguing from a particular ideology. When they embrace abortion rights, they tend do so with talking points from ideology as well.

[JK37]

To think all this started because I suggested Christians’ political views about abortion are influenced by their religion. Some of y’all just want to be contrarian.

I hear you, but I’m confused. Are you saying that’s a bad thing? If not, then what is the relevance?

[stokesjokes]

A few pages ago, @Purple Haize said this:
“And herein lies the problem. Intermixing Religious beliefs with Political philosophy”

I argued that a Christian’s religious beliefs cannot be separated from political philosophy and used abortion as an example. Then all hell broke loose

To clarify, not only do I think it’s a good thing, I think it’s impossible for it not to be true.

[JK37]

I think it’s possible to sinfully compartmentalize God out of certain areas of our thoughts, including politically.

That said, I don’t think a Christian should do that.

[stokesjokes]

Yes, I find that the places we try to keep God out of are where our idols tend to live.

[Jonathan Carone]

The Gospel should absolutely influence our personal politics. There’s two “issues” that are hard to wrestle against with that:

1) Being able to understand why and disagree with someone who applies the Gospel different than you;

2) Determining when something should be banned because it’s anti-God’s law vs when it should be allowed even though God tells us to avoid it.

We’ve got to get better at wrestling with those two things while still agreeing we love Jesus and our disagreements don’t disqualify us from spreading the Gospel together.

[SumItUp]

[thepostman]

It has been interesting to see how differently people have viewed that press conference today.

I viewed it as much of the same and not much substance but others seem to believe they knocked it out of the park.

We will see what happens in court but nothing has gone well for them so I am not sure what they have that makes them think this will change now.

The comparisons to Florida in 2000 is just insane. It just isn't comparable.

Trump got record setting votes, Republicans gained seats in the house and are probably going to remain in power in the Senate. If this was widespread fraud then they did it wrong.

I know there are legit concerns and I hope it gets looked at but throwing out enough votes in order to reverse the election isn't going to happen. If it were, the Republicans and Trump wouldn't be 1 for 32 in court so far.

[stokesjokes]

One thing I’ve seen pointed out a couple of times:

The things they are alleging in these press conferences or even in any of the presidents’ tweets are not the things they are actually alleging in court. You would think if they had evidence of these claims they would be brought to court soon since the window before the results are certified is closing fast.

[thepostman]

Right. When Rudy was asked directly in court in PA the other day if this was a fraud case, he said no. So it just doesn't make sense unless all this is is a publicity stunt...

[stokesjokes]

Seems like escalation to me. First, it was try to throw out the mail-in ballots, they lost all of those cases. Then, it was claim the computers were hacked, the Department of Homeland Security comes out and says it was the most secure election we’ve ever had from a technology standpoint. Now, it seems like the playbook is to try to cast enough doubt to either get individual Republican county canvassers to refuse to certify the results or to try to hijack the electoral college.

If Trump wasn’t so against the idea of election-stealing, I would say he’s trying to do it.

[Jonathan Carone]

I think there were irregularities in certain places that need to be looked at and fixed before 2022 but the idea of widespread fraud just isn’t plausible.

[Purple Haize]

It has been interesting to see how differently people have viewed that press conference today.

I viewed it as much of the same and not much substance but others seem to believe they knocked it out of the park.

We will see what happens in court but nothing has gone well for them so I am not sure what they have that makes them think this will change now.

The comparisons to Florida in 2000 is just insane. It just isn't comparable.

Trump got record setting votes, Republicans gained seats in the house and are probably going to remain in power in the Senate. If this was widespread fraud then they did it wrong.

I know there are legit concerns and I hope it gets looked at but throwing out enough votes in order to reverse the election isn't going to happen. If it were, the Republicans and Trump wouldn't be 1 for 32 in court so far.

My take aways :
I thought the fact that The Presidents team has only filed 3 suits according to Rudy was interesting. I guess the rest were filed by others. Not sure that distinction had been made before
Recounts are not audits and like above it seems they are being used interchangeably in the general public
Sidney Powell is good.
In my mind there are some legitimate questions that I’d like answered. I mean I’ve never bought in to the “water Mark” conspiracy etc. But in the last week there have just been some things that make me go hmmm

[rtb72]

While I'm not necessarily sold on wide spread fraud as it would take an unbelievable, almost impossible, degree of strategy and leak free networking; I do believe there were sinister actors involved in some states. The best way to ensure citizens are not disenfranchised in the future, is to fully prosecute those bad actors. The question is...will the federal government do so. If not, then you will see it escalate over future elections because...well, they got away with it. No matter who wins, there needs to be a clear message sent that our Constitution will not be compromised. If ANY administration fails to do the due diligence necessary after this election to address that....they should never hold office again, and I would argue they are complicit in such actions. The one item that MUST be addressed is whether PA election officials completely defied the orders handed down by the SCOTUS Associate Justice Allito to keep ballots seperated that were "mail-in". If court ordered actions were not adhered to, when issued by one of the highest officials of the 3rd branch, then essentially the rule of law is optional; I would even argue, irrelevant in some cases. And as Benjamin Franklin warned....that's how you lose your Republic.

[puttincomputers]

I found the abortion discussion interesting, and quite revealing. Perhaps this should be broken out into a separate thread (and perhaps there is one).

How is it revealing? Well, it shows ignorance on the part of those who claim that the anti-abortion platform is solely of a religious position (and thus somehow of an only Republican issue). Those who make that argument are clearly uninformed of the following groups. "New Wave Feminists" https://www.newwavefeminists.com/ whose slogan is Consistent non-violence from the womb to the tomb., "Democrats for Life of America" https://www.democratsforlife.org who had 81 of their endorsed candidates elected THIS YEAR, Secular Pro-life https://www.secularprolife.org/, and Pro-Life Humanists https://www.prolifehumanists.org are just a few examples.

Pro-life Humanists is particularly interesting as their Executive Director went toe to toe with famous atheist thinker Matt Dillahunty in a debate on abortion way back in 2012.

[stokesjokes]

I can clarify, at least for me:

My intention isn’t to say that the anti-abortion position is a position that only a religious person would take. My intention is to say that Christians who vote pro-life are doing so because of the influence of their religion. It was just an example of how political and religious belief are necessarily intertwined. A Christian worldview creates a lens through which everything else is seen.

And I don’t think anyone is trying to shoehorn it into a Republican-only position, I think you’re conflating two separate discussions: one about the monolithic nature of evangelical political beliefs and one long rabbit trail about abortion separately.

[paradox]

...never mind

[willflop]

I found the abortion discussion interesting, and quite revealing. Perhaps this should be broken out into a separate thread (and perhaps there is one).

How is it revealing? Well, it shows ignorance on the part of those who claim that the anti-abortion platform is solely of a religious position (and thus somehow of an only Republican issue). Those who make that argument are clearly uninformed of the following groups. "New Wave Feminists" https://www.newwavefeminists.com/ whose slogan is Consistent non-violence from the womb to the tomb., "Democrats for Life of America" https://www.democratsforlife.org who had 81 of their endorsed candidates elected THIS YEAR, Secular Pro-life https://www.secularprolife.org/, and Pro-Life Humanists https://www.prolifehumanists.org are just a few examples.

Pro-life Humanists is particularly interesting as their Executive Director went toe to toe with famous atheist thinker Matt Dillahunty in a debate on abortion way back in 2012.

For me, it's not that certain groups can't profess this position, just that their arguments have to presuppose certain values that their worldview cannot account for (ultimately values grounded in religious truths). Take her opening statement. It starts off by juxtaposing the issue of justifying abortion based on whether it's killing a human being or not. This begs the question that human beings have intrinsic value. It also begs the question that either side of the view needs a "justification." Who is the judge that's going to issue the ultimate justification? If it's man, then they can just self-justify their own views and we can proceed into a poly-human-theistic relativism.

[paradox]

Reminds me of a line from Van Morrison..."why, why must I always explain...over and over and over again."

[puttincomputers]

For me, it's not that certain groups can't profess this position, just that their arguments have to presuppose certain values that their worldview cannot account for (ultimately values grounded in religious truths). Take her opening statement. It starts off by juxtaposing the issue of justifying abortion based on whether it's killing a human being or not. This begs the question that human beings have intrinsic value. It also begs the question that either side of the view needs a "justification." Who is the judge that's going to issue the ultimate justification? If it's man, then they can just self-justify their own views and we can proceed into a poly-human-theistic relativism.

If you were to listen a secular humanist, you would learn that secular humanists believe all species desire the survival and improvement of the species, regardless of bad actors that lose focus, beyond our own generation. This desire is especially pronounced within our species. As a result, humans seek out ways (science and religion) to ensure that this goal is met for everyone, including ourselves.

Personally, I am a Christian Humanist.

[willflop]

For me, it's not that certain groups can't profess this position, just that their arguments have to presuppose certain values that their worldview cannot account for (ultimately values grounded in religious truths). Take her opening statement. It starts off by juxtaposing the issue of justifying abortion based on whether it's killing a human being or not. This begs the question that human beings have intrinsic value. It also begs the question that either side of the view needs a "justification." Who is the judge that's going to issue the ultimate justification? If it's man, then they can just self-justify their own views and we can proceed into a poly-human-theistic relativism.

If you were to listen a secular humanist, you would learn that secular humanists believe all species desire the survival and improvement of the species, regardless of bad actors that lose focus, beyond our own generation. This desire is especially pronounced within our species. As a result, humans seek out ways (science and religion) to ensure that this goal is met for everyone, including ourselves.

Personally, I am a Christian Humanist.

Which commits the is-ought fallacy, if that's the grounding for certain moral values.

[TH Spangler]

I sometimes wonder if God planted a gene in the brain of an embryo that was to develop and deliver the knowledge needed for curing cancer and it was aborted. Man seems to screw everything up?

[puttincomputers]

Which commits the is-ought fallacy, if that's the grounding for certain moral values.

Well, I would agree that American "Christian" fundamentalists definitely commit that fallacy. American fundies say "our teachings have not changed since our ancestors and they should never change." The truth is, American fundies actually teach a modern version of Christianity.

I sometimes wonder if God planted a gene in the brain of an embryo that was to develop and deliver the knowledge needed for curing cancer and it was aborted. Man seems to screw everything up?

What if that knowledge was contained in a child living in the middle east thousands of years ago, but that child was killed as part of a genocide supposedly commanded by God? Then again, the Bible disagrees with itself on whether or not some of those groups were wiped out. Look especially into the discordant stories in the Bible about the Jebusites.

[thepostman]

The Trump Campaign’s legal case in federal Court in PA went really well.

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

SOURCE

[Jonathan Carone]