Back in the 19th century, Texas was awash in vigilante groups. Modeled after the Texas Rangers, they embarked on a decades-long campaign of ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples in the western territory.

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state is now unleashing another wave of newly minted bounty hunters — this time on women.

The Supreme Court has let stand the Lone Star State’s latest attack on women — a law that criminalizes abortion after six weeks, before most women realize they’re pregnant, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The new law also incentivizes ordinary citizens to hunt down and sue anyone who helps a woman defy the ban with a minimum payoff of $10,000.

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has been legal in the United States up to the time of viability, meaning when the fetus can survive on its own outside of the womb, about six months into the pregnancy.

The Texas statute is a clear violation of Roe and would probably be declared unconstitutional if the state were the entity hunting down women. But the law skirts the problem by delegating that job to the new vigilantes, who will be the enforcers.

Citizens are authorized to bring frivolous lawsuits and the threat of $10,000 fines to those caught “aiding and abetting” abortions for women past the six-week mark. The bounty hunters don’t even have to be Texans — anybody in the United States can bring such a suit.

To be clear, the court’s action in letting the Texas statute stand for now wasn’t a final ruling. What the justices did was refuse to stop enforcement because abortion providers trying to block the law didn’t properly address “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions.”

The Supremes said they could try again with “procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law.”

There’s a slim chance that it could be found unconstitutional in a future ruling, but a timetable is unknown. If and until that happens, the de facto overturning of Roe v. Wade remains in place, and anti-choice zealots in states like Florida and South Carolina are already working on ways to copy the Texas strategy.

In 1989, when the Supreme Court first opened the way for state restrictions, Justice Harry Blackmun warned: “For today, the women of the nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.”

In its next term, which starts in October, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether Roe should be overruled in a Mississippi case — a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks currently blocked by lower courts.

Back in Texas, a bill defining all abortions as murder punishable by death has already been debated once in the legislature. It didn’t pass, but there’s no reason to think it’s off the table. And for now, vigilantes appear eager to start their work.

A chill wind indeed.

Martha Burk is the director of the Corporate Accountability Project for the National Council of Women’s Organizations.

Recommended for you

(91) comments

Carlos Ponce

The Supreme Court has let stand the Lone Star State’s protection of the pre-born. God is smiling.[beam]

Charles Douglas

Mr. Ponce> [thumbup][thumbup]

Jim Forsythe

The Justice Department sued Texas, arguing the law is clearly unconstitutional and the federal government has authority to stop it. A federal judge in Austin will hear that case Oct. 1.

The Justice Department “frames the case as the harmed party being the United States of America. That is, the U.S. will suffer because it performs abortions at the Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Defense or Office of Refugee Resettlement, and its employers will now be exposed to crimes.”

Carlos Ponce

If the law protects one child it is worth it.

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world for the causes of sin. These stumbling blocks must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

Craig Mason

Then you must be for school district mask mandates Carlos, because they could save a child’s life.

Carlos Ponce

That is the most convoluted deduction I've ever heard, Craig Mason.

Ed Buckner

Rant: Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

Good Ed! You're so easy to control.! Again, AGAIN!

Ed Buckner

I've been accused of sadistic bullying because of my picking on poor defenseless Carlos Ponce as I have. But let me point out: he is the one begging me to keep humiliating him. So, Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Gary Miller

Craig> There is no evidence that masks have ever saved a single life.

Ed Buckner

Your religious quoting is bizarre and absurd. Neither civil law nor the Bible Christians supposedly follow remotely support your foolishness. If you claim to be a biblical-based, Bible-believing Christian, and to know scripture, then you'll already know what the Bible says about abortion, fetuses, etc. If you don't--and actually want to (I doubt that)--let me know. You could start here (but you probably won't--you probably don't even care what the Bible says nor believe in the Christian concepts of God or the Bible, as you do not): https://reverbpress.com/religion/bible-supports-abortion/

Jim Forsythe

Senate Bill 8, patients themselves cannot be sued for seeking an abortion. The person that is more evolved than anyone else, does not face any penalty's, and the person that only drives her, faces the following? The driver could face a civil suit for $10,000 for each abortion and be required to pay the plaintiff's court costs. The woman that had the abortion, zero penalties.

No woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy that she wants to terminate. If she wants, it will happen. Rich women in Texas will simply go to another state and have an abortion. Others, will use other means.

Senate Bill 8 also leaves out a 12 year old victim of incest or rape.

Women should avoid being raped or the victims of incest, because there are no exceptions for pregnancies that result from those crimes in Texas’ laws.

SB 8 has been assailed by clergy from faith groups that support abortion rights. Among the plaintiffs in a July suit challenging the law is the Rev. Daniel Kanter, senior minister of First Unitarian Church of Dallas and a past chair of Planned Parenthood’s Clergy Advocacy Board.

The Jewish Council of Public Affairs, which represents more than 140 national and local Jewish organizations, condemned SB 8 and other anti-abortion restrictions as “dangerous measures” that should be thwarted by federal legislation.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, are you planning on driving a woman to get an abortion?

Jim Forsythe

Why, so you can rat me out, to get the $10,000 . What would the women receive as a penalty?

Carlos Ponce

"What would the women receive as a penalty?" No penalty, just offered an alternative.

"There are always alternatives, " Spock - Star Trek The Galileo 7.

Jim Forsythe

Any women determine to get a abortion, will get one. We are now going back pre 1973. If a women is a victim of rape, incest, to bad if she lives in Texas.

Remember those day's of broken soda bottles, knitting needles, bicycle spokes. Bleach, turpentine, detergent. Infertility, mutilation. These are the horrifying hallmarks of the days before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade upheld a woman’s right to abortion. Before that landmark moment, women wanting to terminate a pregnancy had to visit back alley doctors, collect funds to travel to a state where the procedure was legal, or attempt it themselves. The results were often devastating, as made so visceral by the now infamous symbol of this time: the coat hanger.

Bailey Jones

To be fair, Jim, it's only the poorest women who will be forced to carry to term babies they don't want. This law will have no effect on women who can afford a plane ticket and a couple of days off from work. These unwanted children will enter the "school to prison pipeline" where the for-profit prison corporations that support conservative legislators will be happily waiting to take them. It's really a win-win for all involved. Except for the people actually involved, of course.

Jim Forsythe

Bailey, you are right, what I meant to say was, no woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy that she wants to terminate. If she wants a abortion, it will happen. Rich women in Texas will simply go to another state and have an abortion. Others, they will use other means.

Senate Bill 8 will change the location of abortions', not the number that happen. The number of deaths of women, from back alley abortions will increase.

As of 2014, some 60% of women having abortions in Louisiana were in their 20s; 59% had one or more children; 86% were unmarried; 75% were economically disadvantaged; and 62% reported a religious affiliation. These numbers will increase as Texas woman start going to Louisiana for abortions. If Louisiana changes it laws, woman will find another state to go to, if they have the money, if not, they will do it themselves.

Carlos Ponce

" no woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy that she wants to terminate"

Jane Roe's pregnancy continued. After all was said and done, she decided non-termination was the right thing to do. Time healed. God is absolutely good!

Bailey Jones

Jim, I fear you are right. We've seen the ridiculousness that the internet has brought in terms of COVID "cures", just imagine the homebrew abortion advice that will be coming. De-wormer? Tide pods? Counterfeit mail order mifepristone/misoprostol?

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, Norma McCorvey was ambivalent about abortion. She believed that abortion ought to be legal for precisely three months after conception, a position she stated publicly after both the Roe decision and her religious awakening.

Jim Forsythe

Bailey, you are right as to what may be used now. I remember the 60's and 70's and what was used, with bad results.

"Before the legalization of abortion in all states, women were known to have tried various herbs, poisons, pushing of foreign objects into the cervix, and even beatings to cause an abortion or miscarriage," "In the 1960s, it is estimated that thousands of people attempted to abort with these unsafe methods. Hospitals regularly saw women in 'septic abortion wards,' where they would die of hemorrhage or infection after an incomplete attempt to self-abort. Seeing the danger of these methods, some small groups of people learned how to provide safe and successful abortions. The Jane Collective is a great example as they provided over 11,000 illegal but safe abortions in Chicago. Even with people organizing to provide safe abortion, it still wasn’t enough to meet the needs of women across the U.S."

Although 17 states had legal abortion, before Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made it legal nationwide, for those women who didn't live in those states, back alley abortions, in addition to women trying to abort their fetus on their own was a serious problem. It's estimated that between the 1950s and 1960s, anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed a year — either in back alley situations or self-induced. One study found that 829,000 illegal abortions took place in North Carolina alone in 1967. In 1965, it's estimated that illegal abortions accounted for 17 percent of pregnancy-related deaths that year. Although, those were just the cases that were reported. So it's assumed that the actual percentage is far greater.

Carlos Ponce

Continue the timeline, Jim:

From Wiki:

"In 1994, McCorvey published her autobiography, I Am Roe. At a book signing, McCorvey was befriended by Flip Benham, an evangelical minister and the national director of the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue. She converted to Christianity and was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham, in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool – an event that was filmed for national television. Two days later, she announced that she had quit her job at an abortion clinic and had become an advocate of Operation Rescue's campaign to make abortion illegal. She voiced remorse for her part in the Supreme Court decision and said she had been a pawn for abortion activists.

On August 17, 1998, McCorvey was received into the Catholic Church in a Mass celebrated by Father Edward Robinson and concelebrated by Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, at Saint Thomas Aquinas Church in Dallas. McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, described her religious conversion and was published in 1998. In the book, she said that her change of heart occurred in 1995, when she saw a fetal development poster in an Operation Rescue office.

In 2004, McCorvey sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, saying that there was now evidence that the procedure harms women, but the case was ultimately dismissed in 2005. On January 22, 2008, McCorvey endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul because of his anti-abortion position.

McCorvey remained active in anti-abortion demonstrations, including one she participated in before President Barack Obama's commencement address to the graduates of the University of Notre Dame. McCorvey was arrested on the first day of U.S. Senate hearings for the confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of Sonia Sotomayor, after McCorvey and another protester began shouting during Senator Al Franken's opening statement." McCorvey appeared in the 2013 film Doonby, in which she delivers an anti-abortion message.[

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, Norma McCorvey was ambivalent about abortion. She believed that abortion ought to be legal for precisely three months after conception, a position she stated publicly after both the Roe decision and her religious awakening.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, you are quoting from:

https://www.joshuaprager.com/the-atlantic-press

which was her attitude before and just after Roe v Wade pre-1995 - a view NOT carried on later in life.

Her deathbed "revelation" is exaggerated by the pro-abortion forces. She merely stated the pro- life people gave her a script and she rehearsed and acted it saying she was a good actress. She was also paid for her time. She NEVER said the script did not reflect her own feelings but that's what pro-abortionists lead you into thinking. They take snippets from the interview then cut away interjecting their own view. Very misleading. But Jim bought it. [rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

The issue is, do we want to go back to a time before 1973? The new law in Texas, if it is not struck down, will just change how abortion are done, and not do away with them.

In the early 1980s Norma began volunteering at an abortion clinic and also began speaking out in favor of the right to choose.

In 1981, Norma briefly volunteered for the National Organization for Women in Dallas. Thereafter, slowly, she became an activist—working at first with pro-choice groups.

In April 1989, Norma McCorvey attended an abortion-rights march in Washington, D.C. She had revealed her identity as Jane Roe days after the Roe decision, in 1973, but almost a decade elapsed before she began to commit herself to the pro-choice movement.

Norma died February 18, 2017, Katy, Texas, but before she died she made this statement.

But in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by anti-abortion groups to support their cause.

Norma may or may not have changed her mind about abortion. She did some things for money.

Ed Buckner

Quite well said/written, Ms. Burk. May all thinking and reasoning Texans (as well as former Texans like me) read your words and learn. As to Mr. Ponce and his ranting, 'tis best to remember that he will not engage in reasoned debate, so best not to waste one's time.

Carlos Ponce

No rant, Ed Buckner.

Ed Buckner

Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce.

Carlos Ponce

No rant, Ed Buckner.

Ed Buckner

Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

"A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation." sounds like your typical Ed Buckner post!

Ed Buckner

Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

Look at me controlling an atheist! I bet I can make Ed Buckner repeat his last post.

Ed Buckner

Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

And he has no strings! Do it again, Ed. I COMMAND you!

Ed Buckner

I've been accused of sadistic bullying because of my picking on poor defenseless Carlos Ponce as I have. But let me point out: he is the one begging me to keep humiliating him. So, Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

AGAIN! AGAIN! I command it!

Now watch, readers, I post "AGAIN!" and Ed Buckner obeys!

God is Great!

Ed Buckner

I've been accused of sadistic bullying because of my picking on poor defenseless Carlos Ponce as I have. But let me point out: he is the one begging me to keep humiliating him. So, Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

God is GREAT![beam]

Ed Buckner

Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Carlos Ponce

With God's help I am able to control Ed Buckner's actions. Watch him post the same ... again!

Thank you Ed Buckner for helping me demonstrate the power of God!

GOD IS GREAT!

Ed Buckner

I've been accused of sadistic bullying because of my picking on poor defenseless Carlos Ponce as I have. But let me point out: he is the one begging me to keep humiliating him. So, Noun: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. One declaimed without any willingness to engage in a reasoned, rational exchange. Self-evidently, e.g., most postings by Carlos Ponce. (Repeat as needed.)

Mason Schraufnagel

Protecting the unborn is a noble cause and it is great that Texas is doing just that.

Carlos Ponce

[thumbup]Mason Schraufnagel[thumbup]

Ed Buckner

This was no more true or reasonable the last time you posted it than it is now. Mr. Schraufnagel. We could discuss this, but you refused to do anything but repeat yourself the last time, and I'd assume the same would happen this time.

Bailey Jones

C'mon, Ed, you know the song...

"Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is great

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs

On the dusty ground

God shall make them pay for

Each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,

Spill theirs just anywhere,

But God loves those who treat their

Semen with more care"

Ed Buckner

[thumbup] Monty Python, The Meaning of Life--yes!

Mason Schraufnagel

You only attempt to justify the murders with semantic arguments. It is pointless to discuss with you.

Ed Buckner

What is pointless is pretending to "discuss" when all you're doing is repeating ill-informed assertions.

Mason Schraufnagel

Ed, abortion is no different than you running over a 3 year old with your Prius.

Ed Buckner

Mason Schraufnagel, your analogy is bizarre and absurd. Neither civil law nor the Bible Christians supposedly follow remotely support your foolishness. If you claim to be a biblical-based, Bible-believing Christian, and to know scripture, then you'll already know what the Bible says about abortion, fetuses, etc. If you don't--and actually want to (I doubt that)--let me know. You could start here (but you probably won't--you probably don't even care what the Bible says nor believe in the Christian concepts of God or the Bible, as Carlos Ponce does not): https://reverbpress.com/religion/bible-supports-abortion/

Mason Schraufnagel

Ed, I don't need the Bible to tell me that killing babies is wrong. At the minimum, abortion is Manslaughter, however I do argue that malice is involved.

Your attempts to justify the murders out of convenience is your own issue.

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must protect children from your demented ideology at multiple levels of society.

Ed Buckner

I certainly don't think that the Bible is a reliable moral authority, either, Mr. Schraufnagel. But that doesn't mean I accept your judgement on moral matters, either. You obviously cannot even correctly define "murder" or "child" and lack moral understanding in general.

Mason Schraufnagel

Ed, like I said, your arguments are entirely semantic in nature and have no real standing.

The willful execution of a child is murder. A baby in the womb is a child. Abortion is the willful execution of that child.

Your pathetic attempts to justify the murders by semantic dodgery is typical of your ilk and something you should spend some personal reflection upon.

Ed Buckner

Mason Schraufnagel, what you refer to as semantic arguments are in fact crucial. Every culture I know anything about considers the willful execution of a baby or a child murder and as plainly wrong. I do as well, of course. And I don't need any scripture to tell me that murdering babies or children is completely unacceptable. I don't accept the Judeo-Christian Bible as morally authoritative or as being the word of any god--I don't believe there are any gods. But the language and descriptions in the Bible are nevertheless pertinent, since nowhere in that book (compiled/written/edited by hundreds of people over many centuries) is an unborn fetus equated with a baby nor is the death of a fetus, however caused, treated as murder. This tells us, plainly, that throughout most of Western history, your own opinion (that abortion = murder of a child) been the generally accepted one. We human beings do change our minds about moral questions--human slavery was accepted in the Bible and throughout most of human history, but now nearly everyone agrees that no human can "own" another. But we do not change our moral standards merely because the Mason Schraufnagels of the world declare that their views are correct. You want change like that, you have to persuade, not just assert. Repeating your assertions does nothing at all to make them correct.

Ed Buckner

CORRECTED: Mason Schraufnagel, what you refer to as semantic arguments are in fact crucial. Every culture I know anything about considers the willful execution of a baby or a child murder and as plainly wrong. I do as well, of course. And I don't need any scripture to tell me that murdering babies or children is completely unacceptable. I don't accept the Judeo-Christian Bible as morally authoritative or as being the word of any god--I don't believe there are any gods. But the language and descriptions in the Bible are nevertheless pertinent, since nowhere in that book (compiled/written/edited by hundreds of people over many centuries) is an unborn fetus equated with a baby nor is the death of a fetus, however caused, treated as murder. This tells us, plainly, that throughout most of Western history, your own opinion (that abortion = murder of a child) has not been the generally accepted one. We human beings do change our minds about moral questions--human slavery was accepted in the Bible and throughout most of human history, but now nearly everyone agrees that no human can "own" another. But we do not change our moral standards merely because the Mason Schraufnagels of the world declare that their views are correct. You want change like that, you have to persuade, not just assert. Repeating your assertions does nothing at all to make them correct.

David Hardee

Mr. Buckner, in your comment,

Buckner comment Sep 23, 2021 3:57pm

“Mason Schraufnagel, what you refer to as semantic arguments are in fact crucial. Every culture I know anything about considers the willful execution of a baby or a child murder and as plainly wrong. I do as well, of course. And I don't need any scripture to tell me that murdering babies or children is completely unacceptable. I don't accept the Judeo-Christian Bible as morally authoritative or as being the word of any god--I don't believe there are any gods.” -

NOTE - Buckner’s knowledge of the existence of these scholarly publications were used in his cognitive process to arrive at his Atheist BELIEF.

- “But the language and descriptions in the Bible are nevertheless pertinent, since nowhere in that book (compiled/written/edited by hundreds of people over many centuries) is an unborn fetus equated with a baby nor is the death of a fetus, however caused, treated as murder. This tells us, plainly, that throughout most of Western history, your own opinion (that abortion = murder of a child) been the generally accepted one. -

NOTE - the prior is not particular relevant -

“We human beings do change our minds about moral questions--human slavery was accepted in the Bible and throughout most of human history, but now nearly everyone agrees that no human can "own" another. But we do not change our moral standards merely because the Mason Schraufnagels of the world declare that their views are correct. You want change like that, you have to persuade, not just assert. Repeating your assertions does nothing at all to make them correct.

NOTE - Again Buckner’s knowledge of the existence of these scholarly publications were used in his cognitive process to arrive at his Atheist BELIEF.

Mr. Buckner, it is my BELIEF, nested in your comment Sep 23, 2021 3:57pm. you have just defined the process used in the production of the atheist deity, SELF. You also revealed the genesis of yourSELF-deity as being the cognitive process that depended on and used the consortium of all information provided by the scholarship and publications from every discipline, including that of religious disciples. The fruit of those religious disciples concocted an imagery beyond the metaphysical capacity of man and created a spiritual imagery named God. Many Gods were created. Gods of virtue, speed, erotic, benevolent and even evil appeared. So the non existing no-named deity of the Atheist is created in the same manner but its imagery does exist as in the real world as each individual claims Atheism’s deity is himSELF.

Like all of us, an Atheist’s psyche houses his product of the same cognitive process and arrives at a conclusion. The specific members of their non-traditional/non-religious SECT of believers in SELF are called Atheists. There are other SELF religious sect members that are not as well established as the Atheist. The Agnostic sect member is a confused person who believes himself unable to KNOW. about the un-knowable. Seems if we think about it and it is beyond evidentiary proof, we can resort to a belief based on the opposition's inability to produce evidentiary proof what we believe, they cannot prove it is a wrong belief,

The human BELIEF (trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.) is a human foible in the category/realm of irrationalities (not logical or reasonable.)., and source of many squabbles.

Ed Buckner

A reply to Mr. Hardee in re belief and atheism is in the works--be patient, please.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Hardee has made some points but has missed the mark, widely, in re others.

All literate human beings I know anything about read, learn, and come to conclusions—on that we seem to agree. Most—possibly not all—people like me who call ourselves atheists hold no beliefs in the existence of any gods, in the efficacy of prayer, in the existence of any sort of after-life, etc. But these are not religious beliefs, merely conclusions and in fact more reasonably called absences of belief. Similarly, I have no religion. If I am to be considered to have a religion, then everyone, world-wide, who does not collect stamps must be considered therefore to have a hobby.

I generally try (and usually succeed) not to even use the term “belief” to avoid this confusion, though of course one can have beliefs unrelated to any gods. “Everyone's gotta believe in something—I believe I’ll have another beer.” “Religion” or “religious” can also have meanings unrelated to any gods: “He played golf religiously every weekend.”

Most definitions of religion involve some dogma, some set of beliefs the adherent must hold to in order to be a part of that religion. Atheists I know disagree about pretty much everything, including what “atheist” means or whether to capitalize the word. For me, atheism means “a” (“without”) “theism” (“beliefs in god(s)”). I’d also point out that agnostic means merely one who thinks it is impossible to have knowledge about gods—so I consider myself an atheist and an agnostic—and I deny that such is contradictory.

I no more worship myself than any other rational person (of whatever religion) worships himself. I strive for self-respect and think others should as well. I generally think I’m right about things—just as any other rational person (of whatever religion) thinks about his views. I am as well a skeptic—and to me that means everything—including my own conclusions—should be held tentatively and should be subject to investigation, questioning, and reconsideration.

BTW, I think Mr. Hardee’s claims about atheism could just as well be applied to his passion for detecting hidden agendas, which do sometimes exist—but not every time he “finds” them.

From Ye Internet--

• Definition of religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

• Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that are exclusive to religion, often relate to the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity or deities, divine intervention in the universe and human life, or the deontological explanations for the values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader or group.

• Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Schraufnagel> [thumbup][thumbup] God Bless You for your wisdom!

" For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before " ORDAINED" ..that we should walk in them." ........( Ephesians 2: 10 ).

" This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in GOD might be careful to maintain GOOD WORKS. These things are good and profitable unto men." ....( Titus 3:8 ).

Good work examples: Help the poor, the orphan, the widows, the hoomless, the stranger, visit the sick, spread, and/or help spread the Gospel, minister to the sinner, the incarcerated, and LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS GOD HAS LOVED US, THAT WE LOVE ONE ANOTHER, BECAUSE BY THAT OTHERS WILL KNOW WE ARE HIS DISCIPLES!

[wink]

Charles Douglas

Before I knew my mother & my father God knew me, and had a plan for my life, before I was born! ( Jeremiah 1:5)( Ephesians 2:10). I have the favor of God and man on my life, ( Luke 2:52 ) ..and that is why with all the things I have been mixed up in which were worthy of death to me, I'm still here and prosperous! I've been on the bottom before, until I found out about God, and learned who I was, and what God could do through me by my planning, preparation, and heart development, and then allowing the POWER of God to work through me! ( Ephesians 3:20.)

Despite all the stumbling blocks, and disadvantages, Racism, Jim Crow, Segregation, Bad Schools, & Radical Behavior the world sent against me ...NONE of it was powerful enough to keep me down & to STOP me from what I set my mind to do! This is why you wont catch me getting excited about a stimulus checks from the government, and about the LEFT bringing up SLAVERY, & JIM CROW every five minutes! Naw! Naw! We can talk. We need to talk, because somebody need to hear this! Listen if you are in Christ, quit being " PO"...You don't have no business being "PO".. or poor you might say!

"If you be Christ's then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. ....( Galatians 3:29 ). ( properous promises, the head & not the tail, above only and not beneath, etc. etc.).

"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich." ......( II Corinthians 8:9 ). ( I just rewarded two of my " Prayer Warriors" who use the prayers of Agreement, & Intercession by which God used to bring me through a 45 day grievous battle against the Santanic, China Plague called COVID! The devil tried his best, but his best was not good enough!! I sent my prayer warriors one thousand dollars each because I love them and I am grateful beyond measure because they they stood in the gap and made up the hedge for me! They blessed me and I blessed them, THAT IS THE WAY IT WORKS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD!!! I did not have to do it, but I had an urge from the Spirit! If you receive an urge from the Spirit of God to do something, you do it! Lastly, IT IS FUN TO BE A CHRISTIAN, REALLY ...I HAVE A BALL DOING WHAT GOD SAY DO,...LETING HIM WORK THROUGH ME TO CHANGE THE LIVES OF OTHERS!

Ed Buckner

If only Charles Douglas actually knew and understood the Bible. He doesn't, but there really isn't any point debating someone unwilling to consider plain truth.

Charles Douglas

If only Ed Buckner who says there is no God, or Devil and who the Bible calls a fool ( Psalm 14: 1 ) on his way to hell, would stop trying to be the smartest individual In the room about the bible! You have said on this forum that you have no God and the Bible is an insult to you! I pity anyone who will take your advice on anything concerning God or his Word It would be a good idea to stick to what you know! You admittedly don't believe in God or in following the Word but you know everything about each of them? You're selling "Wolf Tickets"... but not to me! Lolo.

Psalms 1 says, "Blessed is the man who walked NOT in the counsel of the UNGODLY, nor standeth in the way of the sinner, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." You just do you and I will do me, and we will see where each of us end up! You have heard the truth NOW you are free to be all the atheist, or non believer you care to be. I don't mind a bit!

Ed Buckner

Charles Douglas should not bear false witness--and not just because he thinks his Bibe tells him so. I have indeed said I believe in no gods--but never that "the Bible is an insult to [me]." I have never presented myself as a great biblical scholar--only as someone who knows the Bible a good bit better than many self-described Christians do. An accomplished biblical scholar (and believing Christian) Randal Rauser has explained in great detail why Psalm 14:1 (and Psalm 53:1, almost exactly the same) does not mean what you think it means. But I don't know scripture well enough to be sure he's right. My advice on matters biblical is to read and heed the words of actual biblical scholars, whether atheists like the late Hector Avalos or Christian scholars, of whom there are hundreds if not thousands. Not me. But not people who bray about Christian matters but who demonstrably don't know as much as I do about scripture, theology, theodicies, etc.

Ed Buckner

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nogodblog/2016/03/is-the-atheist-my-neighbor-a-review-by-ed-buckner/

Charles Douglas

If anybody is bearing false witness here.. it is Ed Buckner who brags about being Godless, and about being insulted by the Word on a public forum like it.is a.badge of honor! I can remember my responding to your bold proclamation by saying " I don't care about you being insulted by the Word, if that is what insults You" ....something like that!

Now you are saying you did not say it! Bottom line I don't care one way of the other, there is nothing an admitted atheist can tell me about the Word of God, neither am I fascinated by you being an atheist, because I don't care! I get all the spiritual direction I need from the anointed teachers of the Word, and the Holy Ghost! No atheist running around bragging about how smart he is about God's word can't tell me anything! If there are others on this forum who value information you have toward that, then that is their right to listen, but I find nothing of value from atheist assumptions toward the Word of God period! I'm not calling you out for what you believe, because this is America, you can choose to believe what.you want if you want to pay the price later! PS ..I don't intend to argue with you concerning this issue!

Ed Buckner

I did not say that. You could be misremembering or you could be lying--I don't know. If it's the latter, it's a commandment you claim to be coming from God that you're breaking, so you should care.

Bill Sterchi

A woman has thousands of alternatives NOT to become pregnant - BEFORE the clothes come off. Abortion is not, NOT birth control. Charles Douglas is the most coherent poster in this thread so far. Aborting a baby is murder, clear and simple. A baby is a gift from God. PERIOD. In fact, of all the gifts from God, it is the most precious.

Ed Buckner

Bill Sterchi apparently thinks the way you win debates is by issuing firm assertions, unsupported. But he is wrong, PERIOD. Glad that's settled.

Mason Schraufnagel

It is interesting that the same group that suggests there are "no genders" and that "men can get pregnant" suddenly care about "women's rights". It is the same group that prefers to call women - "birthing persons".

This is not a group that cares about rights, life, women or babies. It is a group that only cares about its own convenience.

Carlos Ponce

The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood. Proverbs

Nothing more innocent than a baby in a mother's womb.

Ted Gillis

We’re do you get your information from Mason? Comic books?

Carlos Ponce

I saw Ted Gillis in a cartoon. Oh wait, that was Daffy Duck as a city councilman in a new Looney Tunes cartoon. Sorry, it's easy to get the two confused.

Mason Schraufnagel

Ted, the current Administration's budget proposal used the term "birthing people". This is well-known and only one small example.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-budget-proposal-replaces-e2-80-98mother-e2-80-99-with-e2-80-98birthing-person-e2-80-99/ar-AAKNMxt

You can do the rest of your own homework.

Ed Buckner

I think The National Review, while seeing the world quite differently than I do, is generally reliable on facts. Therefore the Biden administration probably did write "birthing people" somewhere.And if they did, that's political correctness run amok. Only women can give birth and the fact that a tiny number of transgendered people can identify as men but still give birth is no reason, IMNHO, to ruin the English language. But that does not change, at all, a reasoned support for abortion rights--nor does it justify, at all, the ignorant lack of understanding of what "murder" means or what the correct definition of a "child" is.

Mason Schraufnagel

More semantics.

The willful execution of a baby is murder.

David Hardee

1, Would it be right to conclude not matter consensual or NOT a copulation is required to have exposure to an established pregnancy?

2. would it be right to conclude that if copulation occurs and the possibility of an established pregnancy exist a person would be irresponsible to NOT utilize one of the several preventive options to prevent an established pregnancy from be represented and progressing?

3. Would it be right to conclude there is no established pregnancy subject to illegal act (abortion) if the womb is cleansed prior to the detection of a heartbeat?

If the answer to all 3 is yes then it is right to conclude that an unwanted heartbeat would never be detected and if it does occur it will only because the pregnancy was desired or stated another way - every pregnancy that has progressed to the level of a detectable heartbeat is because a baby is desired.

Simply stated - any copulation whether consensual or not that is allowed to progress till a heartbeat is detected becomes an established wanted pregnancy and is conclusively representing the desire to have a baby.

The entire conundrum over ABOTION is because there is a liberal progressive mind set that there is no one that is responsible for a copulation nor are they responsible for that exposure to copulations progressing, and they are not responsible for maintaining and reacting to their body's signals of some unusual symptom .

This attitude of no personal responsibility is the theme of the progressive liberals toward ever aspect of faults across the spectrum of humanity. This theme of irresponsibility has withered all the mores, morals and ethics that gave persons incentive to have the self-esteem of being known as honorable, a good citizen and an asset to humanity. enabling and incentivizing Lazy, irresponsible and me-ism is the result of liberal progressive benevolence.

Ted Gillis

Well Mason, if that’s how it’s worded in the documents, then there must be a good legal reason for it, so I’ll retract my snark. You on the other hand must have found the wording unpleasant, otherwise you wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of posting it.

And for your information, I don’t do homework, I don’t do research, and I don’t post links. I post comments.

Mason Schraufnagel

Ted, to be fair, I am much more displeased with the bloated numbers in the budget, but that is another topic. Thanks for retracting your snark. Best,

Charles Douglas

Ladies and Gentlemen of the GDN Forum, we are going to have court here tonight! I am familiar with these types of preceding. I will act as Prosecutor, you will act as the Jury, and Ed Buckner will be the Defendant.

OPENING STATEMENT:

I accused Ed Buckner who is an admitted Atheist of posting to me in a previous post a few weeks ago of saying the he did not believe in God and that he insinuated that the Word Of God was insulting! Now, Ladies and Gentlemen of this forum, I intend to present to you a copy of the very post made by Defendant Ed Buckner directed at me on July 22, 2021 where Ed Buckner said exactly what I accused him of saying on an earlier post on THIS Thread on this date ! The author of the OP-ED in question was created by Mr.Joseph A Pelto written on July 21, 2021. I humbly submit this evidence as Exhibit A for the Court.

I want you the Jury to see and be a witness to what is going on here! I will at this time submit as EXHBIT B: the post made on July 22, 2021 by the Defendant to me and I will include my response for clarity:

Jul 22, 2021 4:03pm

Ed Buckner posted :

CORRECTING MY TYPO-- I'm guessing that you have the mental capacity to grasp that, if i don't believe in God, I probably don't believe in the authority of the Bible, and I therefore don't really even care what Psalm 14:1 or it's companion verse, Psalm 53:1, really means. Christian theologian Randal Rauser says, in the Atheist My Neighbor, that it doesn't mean what most Christians think it means. It's a silly thing to throw at me, whatever it means--pointlessly insulting.

Jul 22, 2021 4:34pm

Charles Douglas posted:

Then I thank God I had the opportunity to insult you Ed Buckner, with the Word of God.. if that is what insults you! That's on you not me. My job and mission is to hear, speak, and do the word! I suspect that you might wish you had listened, and done the same one day! However, it does not bother me, that you are inclijed to act so uncaring, and get braggadously affended when the word is mentioned. Your negative disposition toward God and His Word does not phase me a bit! You are not the first I've observed in your condition and you probably won't be the last! I've been prepared for this! Lolo.

SUMMATION:

Here we have it Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury! This is your forum and we should want to keep it a truthful forum, where people tell the truth! I put this case in your hands. Is it your judgment that this man, Ed Buckner told the truth, or did he charge the Petitioner in this case who bought the charge foolishly? You be the judge! I have taken the time to give you the evidence which is overwhelming in my favor! I humbly ask for a conviction, and two months suspension from participation on this forum! Thank you.

Ed Buckner

Hear ye, hear ye! Comes now DEFENDANT Ed Buckner to plead his case--with gratitude to PROSECUTOR Charles Douglas for providing the precise evidence needed to establish the DEFENDANT's innocence: A careful reading of the proffered texts makes it plain that one CHARLES DOUGLAS declared that *he* was using biblical verbiage and interpretation to willfully insult one ED BUCKNER, and that said Buckner expressed open disdain for DOUGLAS and his MISinterpretation of scripture, *NOT* that said BUCKNER was insulted by said scripture. I certainly stand by my statement, "I...don't really even care what Psalm 14:1 or it's companion verse, Psalm 53:1, really means." I don't care all that much what Charles Douglas thinks of me, because he self-evidently doesn't think very well. If the Holy Bible said, in unmistakable words, "No believer should ever speak to or exchange ideas with any nonbeliever on the GCDN forum on penalty of immediate execution," I'd think it was absurd, but not that the Bible had insulted me--only that he who accepted nonsense like that did. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Defendant pleads "Not guilty." (And points out, though it is perhaps a mere technicality, that suspension from the forum is not within your gift.)

Charles Douglas

Lololo. I'm done bothering with Ed Buckner over this, first he denies that God exists, then he blasphemes the Holy Ghost, and he quotes some nut who wrote a book defending athethism. I can't jerk him back, and I'm done trying. Let it not be said that I did not play the Good Samaritan and try to help one who just don't want to be helped. I'm done arguing with the man .....got better things to do.

Carlos Ponce

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

You are a good man for trying, Charles Douglas!

Ed Buckner

I realize that Charles Douglas has not read Randal Rauser's book, Is the Atheist My Neighbor, but if he had, he'd know that Rauser is a Christian and respected theologian who does not defend atheism at all. He does urge his readers to understand the Holy Bible better, including, interestingly enough, the parable of the Good Samaritan. Mr. Douglas quite consistently misrepresents my views, possibly because he does not understand what the God he believes in (and I don't) wants of him.

Ed Buckner

And, once again, Carlos Ponce, who accepts the Bible as authoritative when it suits him but rejects it at other times--best known as a cafeteria Christian--weighs in with a Bible verse. Proof-texting.

George Laiacona

Let’s face the truth, our founding fathers intended “Liberty and Justice for All”. But the Republicans don’t think they should abide by just what that means. Taking away a woman’s Liberty concerning her body is not on the agenda of the Republican legislators. Power over all Americans is what they want, regardless of who’s Liberty they ar trampling on. Until we can again have American Patriots as our legislators, we will have to accept the loss of Liberty that was intended in our Constitution. Just remember January 6th when you enter the voting booth!

Carlos Ponce

Let’s face the truth, our founding fathers intended “Liberty and Justice for All”. But the Liberals don’t think they should abide by just what that means. Every abortion results in DEATH.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce is so wrong... No, wait, he's sort of right. the founding fathers really didn't care about the rights of women (or fetuses)--property owning white males, yes. Slaves, women, fetuses, minorities--not so much.

Carlos Ponce

God loves you Ed.[love]

Charles Douglas

Well, I was worried for a while! No need though, Ed Buckner came through and gave me my "SLAVE FIX"..for today! !!!!! He must have known I was standing in need, Ed Buckner knows everything! Lolo.

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.