The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion

[Marcie Jensen]

3 minutes ago, stveee said:

As I understand it, Alito's opinion is that contraceptive and gay marriage are distinct from abortion rights, therefore safe from overturning. The concern is of life of a fetus.

But the other "liberal" judges seem to be saying it all boils down to bodily autonomy, which goes back further than recent developments of contraception that made abortion essentially convenient.

Judge Thomas' suggestion seems to confirm what the left has suspected that the issue of the sanctity of unborn life is the beginning and larger move for further removing an individual's (bodily) autonomy- being the issue at hand. That, in hardline theocracy, our body is "God given", image of God and therefore not truly our own. A sin of nature is not defined as transgression of oneself, but the Law, disobedience to God. Therefore, religion is terribly convenient for a regime to employ, as it assumes it's OWN existence is divinely sanctioned. Since more people identify as secular, obviously the center of moral authority which was provided by the Church must be taken up by the State. 

Once issues of bodily autonomy come into question, all non-Christian hetero "lifestyles" are threatened, and even more frightening is the all the present capacity of technology to surveil our behavior like never before.

This is a huge shot over the bow, over mainstream society in which it is clear a radical fascist minority is carrying out a larger agenda that they have been working on at least since Obama's term. No one ever imagined Jan 6, but there it was.

 

Okay. This is an interesting post. Before making any comments, I need to disclose that I am an ordained Christian pastor with a Master's of Divinity. This does NOT make my opinions correct, nor does it make mine the singular theology among Christians, or anyone else for that matter.  This is simply my understanding as I've been taught and through experience. Additionally, I don't like bringing theology into this, as there are better forums for discussing the theological implications of the SCOTUS decision. Nevertheless, I feel a need to respond to this as there are some things that need to be addressed. And I freely admit my perspective is Christian. I will also add that I am deeply torn over this issue, as my faith is in sharp contrast with my politics.

In regard to the belief that our body is God given; well, yes it is; BUT and this is an important distinction, nowhere in Scripture, or dogma that I am aware of, does this obviate our own discretion in regard to our bodies. Similarly, and this is orthodox, to a Christian, sin is sin, period. The Roman distinction between "mortal sin/seven deadly sins" and others is in Protestant theology meaningless, and prevention of sin is not Jesus' teaching of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

And I must respectfully disagree with You, Stveee in your remark about all non-Christian hetero lifestyles, as Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism (still alive and well in Iran) have even more strict restrictions on bodily autonomy than Christianity does. Christians are the preferred "whipping boy" of the left due in large part to the actions of a particular theological perspective. Most mainstream denominations--Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists etc.--have endorsed gay ordination, and marriage, and support many LGBTQ+ causes and are accepting of our community. As my late southern grandpa would have put it, "that dog just won't hunt."

As for the rest--surveillance, fascism, January 6, etc. I have no opinion. Or, rather I do, but I am withholding it because, TBH, there's been more than enough accusations, hyperbole and name calling without me adding to the fray. I'm trying very hard to not judge anyone, listen to the arguments of both sides and remain civil. We need more of that and less of the violence and hatred being spewed by both extremes. We don't need any more vandalism of clinics--both pro choice and pro life--incitement to riot and so on. 

How about we all take a deep breath, look at the actual ruling and the dissent and calm down?

[Ivy]

I will add that as an army veteran (I was drafted, but still considered it my duty) I find this all very disturbing.

[Aggie1]

9 minutes ago, stveee said:

That, in hardline theocracy, our body is "God given", image of God and therefore not truly our own. A sin of nature is not defined as transgression of oneself, but the Law, disobedience to God. Therefore, religion is terribly convenient for a regime to employ, as it assumes it's OWN existence is divinely sanctioned. Since more people identify as secular, obviously the center of moral authority which was provided by the Church must be taken up by the State. 

 

Taking the long view here…

 

I would be more fearful of this outcome if the Christian church were monolithic. There are far more denominations of Christianity than there are letters in the LGBTQ alphabet. It’s almost as if God applied the lessons of Babel to the church body, split them asunder and confused their languages. There’s probably a social psychological principle involved where any group that gets too powerful tends to splinter.
 

I think diversity of opinion is probably a healthy phenomenon in the long term to avoid the extremes that issue forth from a monolithic government. Both sides in any debate depend on the right to dissent. I am very suspicious when I hear words like “the debate is over.” Or “everyone agrees.”  

 

with that thought in mind I anticipate there will be some robust debates over the next decade as individual states attempt to settle the issue. Many have already enacted laws to protect rights. I expect others will follow suit. Some may take longer than others.

 

I hope we never see the end of debate over a multitude of issues. I fear the day we do will not be what we think it is.

[Ivy]

14 minutes ago, Aggie1 said:

I think diversity of opinion is probably a healthy phenomenon in the long term to avoid the extremes that issue forth from a monolithic government. Both sides in any debate depend on the right to dissent.

I would agree with this…

 

However we seem to be dealing with the situation where the dissenting opinion is being outlawed.  And not only in the abortion issue.

[SheenaT]

15 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

That is more apt than we can imagine. Think about How Rome fell. the look at the USA:

 

Rome                                             USA

Debased coinage                         Debased coinage (Sandwich coins, bills no longer redeemable for precious metals)

Rampant inflation                         Rampant inflation

Bread and circuses                      Welfare state and professional sports

Lack of morals                             Lack of morals

Indefensible borders                   Border situation

Rampant corruption in

Government and judiciary           Rampant corruption in government and judiciary

Iconoclasm and heresy               Iconoclasm and heresy

Rampant crime in cities              Rampant crime in cities

 

Kinda scary when you stop and think about it...

 

😮

[Marcie Jensen]

33 minutes ago, Jandi said:

I will add that as an army veteran (I was drafted, but still considered it my duty) I find this all very disturbing.

I volunteered, but, I agree 100%. It is very disturbing.

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Jandi said:

And not only in the abortion issue.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/06/roe-v-wade-dead-ending-marriage-equality-bringing-back-sodomy-laws-next/

 

"The lack of regard for precedent and for public opinion is a very bad sign for LGBTQ rights. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas all but issued an open invitation to right-wing legal activists to find cases to bring his way.

In a footnote to his concurring opinion, Thomas said that in striking down the legal basis for abortion, every other decision using the same reasoning is now suspect. That includes Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized marriage equality nationally, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws. In fact, he named those decisions by name.

“We should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents,” Thomas wrote. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

By “the error” Thomas is referring to your marriage and your right to have sex in your bedroom without being arrested.

Don’t think that the right-wing lawyers who engineered today’s decision don’t recognize that invitation. They will be hunting for their next target. Thomas just supplied them."

[Ivy]

I think there is some kind of music thing going on uptown today.  Guess I'll go check it out and try to forget all this for a bit.

Happy Saturday, y'all.