Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm giggling thinking about you marching in front of a Catholic Church with a sign that says, "Plato and Aristotle were wrong! Watch the damn Rorty video with the German subtitles!" ;) 

"Hey hey, ho ho, transubstantiation has got to go!"

"1 2 3 4 we don't want Greek paradigms no more!"

"Ain't no power like the power of Pragmatism and the power of Pragmatism don't stop!"

You made my week!!

Month?? 🤔😁

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, Rod is talking about pro-abortion people protesting outside the private residences of members of America's Supreme Court.

Oh yeah, wrong thread. :(

They all run together lately  anyway.

Maybe we should just switch the board name to "Sympathy For The Devil"?

For the denser among us, yes that is a joke. 

Both topics are about violence vs innocence anyway (yes, that spelling was intended), attempting to force a faith to change doctrine, or kill those unable to defend themselves

Seems to be quite the thing to do of late, that's quite apparent for a former Buffalonian and present Angeleno like me. Just try to kill off the folks you don't value or like or scare them into silence, or ridicule them until they have no credibility.  It's the schoolyard bully scaled up to the level of Hitler, Stalin and Putin, and propaganda straight from the serpent's poisonous mouth.

It's tactics as old as evil itself.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

It's a mistake. I'm sorry but I have been working on marine toilets for the last 3 days. I broke 400$ in parts and I wasn't paying attention when I hit the go button. Sorry. 

No problem.   Having sailed in the Mediterranean for the past 14 years, I empathize with your problem.  I sold my boat in Barcelona right before Covid exploded.  I miss the sailing a lot.  We planned to do a different kind of international traveling.  Still on hold with that plan.  Hope you got it fixed and you are back on the seas.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When they paint with such a broad brush, ridicule isn’t needed. You just stand aside and let their words stand for themselves. 

Huge fallacy.  Words are mirrors, seeing yourself in a glass darkly.  Words only stand for what you don't see in yourself.   In psychology that is called "projection"

Obvious examples: One man's "protest" is another man's "insurrection".   One man's "fetus" is another's "baby".  Another man's "freedom" is someone else's "evil"

Words don't stand for anything except your own perceptions projected on the world

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

less common is a bit of an understatement. Extremely rare seems to be the best estimate when only 5 clinics offer the service and somewhere between 4-9 doctors likely practice. Heck if even 20 doctors practice that’s still really really really small. 

it’s ironically more likely to climb because barriers are going up in other states. It increases the likelihood that people will need to delay their abortion to travel and gain funds. These abortions are not cheap. of course it could also even out in the end and stay about the same, due to access of pill abortions being available via mail. It’s hard to fully project on the trend. But these will still likely be limited for some time to come based on the number of doctors who can actually perform the procedure. One can have something technically legal, but unless someone can do the procedure it’s a bit of a moot legality. There’s only so many procedures that can be done by a doc. 

Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

don’t have one. I was randomly thinking about this while making a quick run to the store today. In front of me was an older couple with their adult daughter who had Down’s syndrome. On the one hand I don’t want to end up like Iceland where there’s practically no person with downs in the whole country. I’ve loved the people with Down’s syndrome I’ve Met. On the other hand, I know that this will be a life long challenge that will cost the family a ton of money, reduce the likelihood a child would be adopted if they felt they couldn’t care for said child’s medical/social needs, and will likely mean added support for the child for the rest of their life. Some families may not be able to handle that. 
i know with my daughter with her disorder, my husband’s extremely hesitant to have more than 2 with this disorder for the amount of work it takes to manage it and it’s nowhere near the degree of care needed for something like Down’s syndrome. More severe cases of what she has can include needed liver transplants and can cause young babies/children to die. I’ve thought of IVF if we can find the other half of the genetic code causing this if we end up with 2 kids with this and we want more. And I understand how someone may choose an abortion if they receive news that it’s likely a more severe case. So that’s a long way of saying I have very mixed feelings about that one. 

This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Choice should be limited based on viability and developing personhood. 

I think choice should be limited based on the right to life of the human being (in biological terms) in whatever stage of development it is in.  But I think 20 weeks or later has better chance of getting anywhere.  Either way, people with Downs syndrome lack neither viability nor personhood (whatever the heck that is). 

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

You have more faith in the government to implement this…and that’s saying something. I’m by no means libertarian leaning. To me the more regulations around this specific concern the more likely things will go through the cracks of our poor foresight and it will heavily fall on the woman to bear the brunt of these mistakes. And that’s a lot of women’s lives who may suffer from severe impairment/cost and at times even death because we got the calculus a little off. 

It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least one state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life.  The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice.   Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Downs syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

 Right, and people with Downs syndrome lack neither. 

It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least on state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life.  The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice.   Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Down syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

We have a wonderful low-functioning downs syndrome young woman in our Ward and she is a blessing to everyone.   She walks around in sacrament meeting sitting for a minute or two with each of her friends, - she has no speech but is constantly vocalizing.   At first visitors are kind of shocked to see this adult sized person wandering around making noises during the sacrament meeting, but after a while you see her as part of your family- like a baby who just happens to have the size of an young adult, and is very mobile and vocal without saying a word.

She has taught us all more about love!  Imagine her coming to you in sacrament meeting- you do not know her- and she sits next to you, trying to get your attention and cooing and and making noises- but all in a very loving manner.   She will wander to the front and pretend to be the speaker, but yet she has no language abilities.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be her parents, but they handle it beautifully.

But she makes me much more aware about this huge issue and the dilemma her parents had and have, and their bravery to learn the level of compassion they have taken upon themselves.   I don't know if I could take it.

On the other hand, I would be a much better person if I were to have had the lesson of raising her- I would be another person than I now am, having fun debating everything with my kids.   My world would be so different I cannot imagine it.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

I think choice should be limited based on the right to life of the human being (in biological terms) in whatever stage of development it is in.  But I think 20 weeks or later has better chance of getting anywhere.  Either way, people with Downs syndrome lack neither viability nor personhood. 

It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least on state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life.  The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice.   Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Down syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

There's not a ton of disagreement about whether people who are already born have a right to live and deserve equal protection under the law. It's before birth where people disagree.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out. My state is, going by voting percentages, a "purple" swing state, but it's been so heavily gerrymandered that state government is in the hands of one party, and that party is pushing some pretty extreme legislation regarding abortion. As people have mentioned, when a seat in government is not really competitive in November, the party primaries determine who gets the seat; this means party activists get their person, who generally reflects the views of the activists, who are almost always more extreme than voters at large. I suspect there will be a backlash eventually to the extremists, but it won't have much of an effect as long as the state legislature is gerrymandered. So, for the short term, I suspect people in the northern parts of my state will go to places like New York and Michigan for abortions. Poorer folks in the southern part of the state will have to travel much farther. This will likely result in criminalization of crossing state lines for the purpose of an abortion (though, good luck enforcing that). Similarly, I suspect there will be a thriving trade in cheap, quickie abortions across the border in Mexico for people in border states like Arizona and Texas. And of course there will be an influx of cheap "morning after" pills and other abortifacient drugs for Internet purchase from places like China, with varying degrees of efficacy and safety. 

In short, I don't think these draconian laws will affect the abortion rate all that much, except among people with fewer financial resources. If we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the resultant abortions, we'd provide better sex/contraception education and access to contraception. But apparently that would be encouraging kids to have sex, as if they needed any encouragement.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

No problem.   Having sailed in the Mediterranean for the past 14 years, I empathize with your problem.  I sold my boat in Barcelona right before Covid exploded.  I miss the sailing a lot.  We planned to do a different kind of international traveling.  Still on hold with that plan.  Hope you got it fixed and you are back on the seas.

I knew you'd understand. 😀

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

There's not a ton of disagreement about whether people who are already born have a right to live and deserve equal protection under the law. It's before birth where people disagree.

Agreed.  But that distinction is what deserves emphasis.  Why is it there?  What is it that differentiates an unborn from a born child, such that the former can be electively killed whereas the latter cannot?

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out. My state is, going by voting percentages, a "purple" swing state, but it's been so heavily gerrymandered that state government is in the hands of one party, and that party is pushing some pretty extreme legislation regarding abortion.

And they may get pushback, such that the legislation may get repealed or amended so that it is less "extreme."

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As people have mentioned, when a seat in government is not really competitive in November, the party primaries determine who gets the seat; this means party activists get their person, who generally reflects the views of the activists, who are almost always more extreme than voters at large. I suspect there will be a backlash eventually to the extremists, but it won't have much of an effect as long as the state legislature is gerrymandered. So, for the short term, I suspect people in the northern parts of my state will go to places like New York and Michigan for abortions.  Poorer folks in the southern part of the state will have to travel much farther. This will likely result in criminalization of crossing state lines for the purpose of an abortion (though, good luck enforcing that). Similarly, I suspect there will be a thriving trade in cheap, quickie abortions across the border in Mexico for people in border states like Arizona and Texas. And of course there will be an influx of cheap "morning after" pills and other abortifacient drugs for Internet purchase from places like China, with varying degrees of efficacy and safety. 

You are likely right.  Hence this principle: "We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society."

We can alter the rule of law, but "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  We need to stabilize what the law says, while also focusing on a "hearts and minds" approach.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

In short, I don't think these draconian laws will affect the abortion rate all that much, except among people with fewer financial resources.

We'll see, I suppose.  

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the resultant abortions, we'd provide better sex/contraception education and access to contraception. But apparently that would be encouraging kids to have sex, as if they needed any encouragement.

I am in favor of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

I think choice should be limited based on the right to life of the human being (in biological terms) in whatever stage of development it is in.  But I think 20 weeks or later has better chance of getting anywhere.  Either way, people with Downs syndrome lack neither viability nor personhood (whatever the heck that is). 

It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least one state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life.  The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice.   Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Downs syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

Is it fair to say you trust the state government to make these choices rather than trusting a woman and her doctor?  Because that's kind of the vibe I'm getting. 


 

Edited by mtomm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

There's not a ton of disagreement about whether people who are already born have a right to live and deserve equal protection under the law. It's before birth where people disagree.

There is legal precedence for the federal government protecting the life of the unborn from conception to birth.  The bill made an exception for abortion given Roe v. Wade.  Now that Roe v Wade is out of the way, I don't see anything keeping an "unborn victims of abortion" act from passing.  

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the resultant abortions, we'd provide better sex/contraception education and access to contraception. But apparently that would be encouraging kids to have sex, as if they needed any encouragement.

Full agreement there.  Prevention is the best way forward. 

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Is it fair to say you trust the state government to make these choices rather than a woman and her doctor?  Because that's kind of the vibe I'm getting. 

I am talking about the federal government's role in preventing late term abortions via protecting the rights to life of the unborn and of the mother.  State governments are going to be all over the place. So are doctors. 

Is it fair to say that you think state governments should not regulate the practice of medicine in your state - That all medical decisions are better left between the patient and their doctor?   Do we really want to go back in time before medical practice was regulated?  Of course state governments have a role to play in regulating the practice of medicine in general, because doctors can't always be trusted.  Medicine is better with regulations.  While the government is not perfect, we are in a better place with regulations than without. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am talking about the federal government's role in preventing late term abortions via protecting the rights to life of the unborn and of the mother.  State governments are going to be all over the place. So are doctors. 

Is it fair to say that you think state governments should not regulate the practice of medicine in your state - That all medical decisions are better left between the patient and their doctor?   Do we really want to go back in time before medical practice was regulated?  Of course state governments have a role to play in regulating the practice of medicine in general, because doctors can't always be trusted.  Medicine is better with regulations.  While the government is not perfect, we are in a better place with regulations than without. 

Nope. I didn't say that at all. I'm just more inclined to fault on the side of the mother and doctor in this situation. And will again say that some regulation is warranted in situations after viability. And even at that point I'm not sure how often it is actually a concern since there are so few doctors that will actually even consider those types of abortions. 
Here is an example of what I find overly intrusive and not medically necessary but is required in many, many states: A woman is required undergo an ultrasound before she is allowed to have an abortion. Now, these are those cute little US where you see them rubbing a wand over the mother's belly. Nope, because the fetus is so small these are an internal US. They serve no purpose other than to shame and humiliate the mother. There is no medical reason to require this procedure.  And those aren't an exception, it is every woman.  
 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I'm just more inclined to fault on the side of the mother and doctor in this situation. 

Again, this is not about state governments.  This is about the federal government protecting the right to life, at least beyond the point of viability.  I don't think the mother and doctor should have jurisdiction over deciding who is protected of life, and who isn't.   The mother is obviously biased, and the doctor may not be thinking in terms of protecting the right to life, but may infact be more open to terminating a Downs syndrome baby...just because the mom doesn't want the burden. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

There is legal precedence for the federal government protecting the life of the unborn from conception to birth.  The bill made an exception for abortion given Roe v. Wade.  Now that Roe v Wade is out of the way, I don't see anything keeping an "unborn victims of abortion" act from passing.  

Full agreement there.  Prevention is the best way forward. 

And unfortunately this just moves the discussion of legislating a national-level morality/common sense from one topic to another, away from abortion and onto prevention and public school / sex education.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And unfortunately this just moves the discussion of legislating a national-level morality/common sense from one topic to another, away from abortion and onto prevention and public school / sex education.

I’m not sure why you say that. I’m providing precedence for protecting the life of the unborn on a national level.  With Roe v. Wade out of the way, I don’t see why this isn’t achievable.

I’ve always supported preventative over punitive measures however.  It makes more sense to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  I have said nothing of how that should be done or the best measures to accomplish it, but it is something worthy of exploration and directly related to the topic of abortion.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, pogi said:

I’m not sure why you say that. I’m providing precedence for protecting the life of the unborn on a national level.  With Roe v. Wade out of the way, I don’t see why this isn’t achievable.

I’ve always supported preventative over punitive measures however.  It makes more sense to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  I have said nothing of how that should be done or the best measures to accomplish it, but it is something worthy of exploration and directly related to the topic of abortion.

I am just observing that, as worthy as it is of exploration, discussion of national-level pregnancy prevention measures (including public education) faces the same kinds of ideological hurdles the abortion discussion does. Given what it seems the SCOTUS decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will bring, these subjects too will probably go to the States to manage. Likewise, any discussion highlighting and focusing on the constitutional rights of “Posterity” that both topics affect. 

P.S. / ETA  I think the Church's Handbook and Proclamation treatments of prevention/birth control and well-rounded (including sex) education of children would hopefully resonate with at least some States -- lucky them! :D

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
11 hours ago, california boy said:

No problem.   Having sailed in the Mediterranean for the past 14 years, I empathize with your problem.  I sold my boat in Barcelona right before Covid exploded.  I miss the sailing a lot.  We planned to do a different kind of international traveling.  Still on hold with that plan.  Hope you got it fixed and you are back on the seas.

My esteem of you never was lacking to begin with, but this post has augmented it even beyond that, if that were possible.  I doff my chapeau to you, Sir. :hi:

Link to comment
On 5/16/2022 at 6:55 PM, mfbukowski said:

No. This is a religious issue requiring 1. Membership in the church

2. Qualifying for a recommend which states that one follows the law of chastity.

3. Not a legal issue at all. It presents rules of membership, which then give exemptions to people who do not believe in the rules of membership.

Fisher investments will only serve people with 500k in liquid assets and other contractual obligations.

Those are the requirements to be members. 

The temple will only accept people who agree on the law of Chastity as the church understands it, and other contractual obligations

Those are among the requirements for a temple recommend. 

No legal issues, if there are, take it up with Fisher Investments. ;)

So in a way you illustrate my point. As a believer you don't want something imposed on you that you don't believe. Why is the same  not true in reverse?  Was the church under any pressure in the 70s over the priesthood ban?  Did that pressure have any influence?  Was that pressure appropriate?  What about the pressure and power of the US government coming to bear on the church in the late 19th century essentially forcing the church to abandon polygamy?  Was that proper?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am just observing that, as worthy as it is of exploration, discussion of national-level pregnancy prevention measures (including public education) faces the same kinds of ideological hurdles the abortion discussion does.

 

No doubt.  But that shouldn't stop us.

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Given what it seems the SCOTUS decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will bring, these subjects too will probably go to the States to manage.

I'm not sure how you think this case (which is expected to find that there is no constitutionally protected right to abortion) would affect national prevention methods and improving contraception access/education to high risk populations.  

This case is not likely to affect what is already being done, but hopefully will shine a light on the increased need for prevention as abortion becomes less available for some.  I do think that states, counties, and cities need to take a much more involved and active role as well. 

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Likewise, any discussion highlighting and focusing on the constitutional rights of “Posterity” that both topics affect. 

I'm not sure what you mean.  How does "constitutional rights of posterity" affect the topic of prevention of unwanted pregnancies?

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

P.S. / ETA  I think the Church's Handbook and Proclamation treatments of prevention/birth control and well-rounded (including sex) education of children would hopefully resonate with at least some States -- lucky them! :D

While I support the church's efforts and think there is a place for teachings on abstinence, we need to be realistic in assessing how effective such measures will be in the high-risk populations we are talking about which don't necessarily share our same values and practices.  We need to stop the hemorrhage before we can effectively address more visceral issues.  

The main point of my post, however, was addressing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So in a way you illustrate my point. As a believer you don't want something imposed on you that you don't believe. Why is the same  not true in reverse?  Was the church under any pressure in the 70s over the priesthood ban?  Did that pressure have any influence?  Was that pressure appropriate?  What about the pressure and power of the US government coming to bear on the church in the late 19th century essentially forcing the church to abandon polygamy?  Was that proper?

I'm not understanding your point.

If you believe whole heartedly in a religion or any worldview that brings you peace, you live it, modify it, or if it changes, you leave it or start your own movement.  Nobody "imposes" anything on anybody. Love it or leave it. ;)  No guns to the head saying "Believe or die!" ;)

Yes the church was under pressure.

It changed.

Some members stayed polygamist, and took the consequences, good for them, others didn't.

No it wasn't proper for the government, imo, but who cares about what I like or dislike?  I live in California which is a one party system, and I am not a member of that party. My government does not reflect my views and probably will never do so.  If it gets too bad, I will move like all the other LDS refugees 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nobody "imposes" [a religion] on anybody. Love it or leave it.  No guns to the head saying "Believe or die!"

I assume you mean inside the the US. Even here, even now, being active in a particular faith can make the difference whether you are accepted into a job, housing, etc.

Much more commonly, it can make the difference whether you are accepted into (or harshly rejected from) the family you were born/married into. Just this month, I received guidance from the Church on how to not be a twitwit, if a family member leaves the Church.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Chum said:

I assume you mean inside the the US. Even here, even now, being active in a particular faith can make the difference whether you are accepted into a job, housing, etc.

Much more commonly, it can make the difference whether you are accepted into (or harshly rejected from) the family you were born/married into. Just this month, I received guidance from the Church on how to not be a twitwit, if a family member leaves the Church.

So move! Where I live you are suspicious if you HAVE ANY religion.

So you keep your mouth shut and get on with life.

Honestly I don't get it.  If you live under oppression you take it and not cry about it, or get yourself free.

My Great Grandfather was Polish and was drafted into Bismarck's Prussian army, the latest foreign ruler that year.  He left and here I am in the USA, thanks to his attitude.

I left Catholicism and have relatives who now avoid me.  C'EST la vie!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...