With Obama's pick of centrist jurist Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court I've been wondering. History is rife with conservative presidents nominating judges who later were less than pro-life but how come it never works the other way, having a liberal appointee who later turned out to be anti-Roe?
Because progressive minds are distinctly different and process things differently than conservative minds. They've proven it. The conservative mind is ruled by the amygdala. Liberals literally don't think that way.
ReplyDeleteThe amygdala the part of the brain ruled by fear.
DeleteExactly so. They've proven that in conservative brains the amygdala is more sensitive and more prone to be excited. Conservatives literally are ruled by fear, whether it be xenophobia, homophobia, islamophobia, racism, it's fear at the bottom of it.
Delete& liberals are ruled by what the pineal gland?
DeleteYou could spin that argument the other way. Look at the paranoia and fear amongst progressive liberals at the thought of a Trump presidency.
DeleteThe Roe Court had 3 Nixon appointments-Burger, Blackmun and Powell: 2 Eisenhower appointments-Brennan and Stewart: FDR
ReplyDeleteappointed Douglas: Kennedy appointed White: Reagan appointed Rehnquist. Only White and Rehnquist dissented. But that was back in the day before litmus tests: for example while White & Rehnquist agreed in Roe, they came
down on different sides on the other biggy of those days,
desegration, which Rehnquist was against. Ideally of course,
no judge should act on his own bias and SCOTUS should argue
and conclude soley on constitutionality. I'm thinking Trump
will nominate his barber....
Problem being abortion isn't mentioned in the whole document like birth control isn't in the Bible.
Delete"...like birth control isn't in the Bible."
DeleteDo you feel it needs to be to validate the Catholic Church's moral arguments against it?
Well yeah like you're lucky enough to get married and you're lucky enough to have sex and the Church still can't leave you alone.
DeleteI don't believe the word of God to be limited and confined to what is printed in the Bible. Considering that 2000+ years ago information certainly didn't travel like it does today. Moreover, the majority were illiterate.
DeleteSubjectively, I concur. Objectively, I understand the Catholic Church's position on it though the modern Catholic Church is, has, and continues to be quite relaxed in traditional teaching. Some of the publishings from the Synod on the family is 180 degrees from the Church's foundation.
Religion ought to raise the bar and encourage its followers to do the same. Instead, it has dumbed down the message and lowered the bar such as to make it more palatable for the masses. I know people that go to these new age Christian places of worship where it's nothing more than a Christian rock concert.
Isn't one of the great goals of religious conservatism to get people to have sex after marriage. Then when many do most churches are happy but one nitpicks.
DeleteThe ends or marriage are pro-creation Z you should know this from your catechism. It is not simply having sex and sexual gratification.
DeleteBy that logic the elderly shouldn't be allowed to marry.
DeleteNo, you are completely obfuscating the issue at hand. No one is saying the elderly cannot marry. What the Catholic Church traditionally taught is that the primary end of marriage is procreation.
DeleteBirth control and even infanticide were practiced in
Deletepre-Christian times. The moral angle is addressed obliquely in the OT (Onan, for example), but the Judeao-Chrisian history is such that Jewish religion
accepts the practice, while as early as 191 AD,
Clement of Alexandria (a convert from Stoicism) melded to Stoic concept of pleasure is bad with the
Christian concept of 'be fruitful and multiply'.
However, birth control practice was not addressed
(the common practice of priests having concubines
was widespread even up through the middle ages).
The current formal Catholic concept was not addressed until 1930 . A concept which a majority of
Catholic couples continue to ignore.
Chris if the primary end of marriage is procreation can you decide to have one kid only? That's not really being fruitful too much.
DeleteA couple certainly could but what the point being advocated, at least where I go to church, is that they shouldn't. It goes against God's will for the couple.
DeleteScalia had it down pat then, 9 kids.
DeleteMy girlfriend is the oldest of 9. My ex was one of 8.
DeleteMormons ?
DeleteWe notice that Hulk Hogan won his suit for $100+ million against Gawker for showing his sex tape. Z-Man if ya got
ReplyDeleteanything on file you could retire early.
Somehow I don't wanna watch Hulk Hogan have sex. He doesn't want us watching him either so we have common ground.
Delete