RE: Abortion and Religion

RE: Abortion and Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I completely agree. I am not "for" overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm for repealing it. If we overturn it, the Fed's are still making a decision for which they have no authority. It needs to be repealed, rescinded, whatever it's called. What decision are they making? Are they telling women they have to get one? quote: Edited to ask: If the Federal Government pays for abortions or funds organizations that provide abortions, is that, too, implicitly endorsing a particular religious belief? The government funds blood banks, for example. There are a few religions who do not agree with such. Are you saying the government endorses a religion by funding those? Really? What authority does the Federal government have in deciding whether or not abortions are legal? That answer is "no authority." I am not saying the Federal Government needs to outlaw abortions. I am saying that the Federal Government has no authority to have an opinion on this. Period. End of discussion. But do get all puffed up and indignant. I have said time and time again that I am not "for" barring anyone from getting an abortion. Not a single person who wants to do that. For me, and me only, I find abortions to be reprehensible and infringing on the rights of the fetus. And, that is a moral stand I take. For me. Not for you. Not for your neighbor. Not for anyone else, but me. You don't agree that abortion is morally reprehensible. Good for you. We actually agree that abortions should not be illegal. Why you piss and moan so much about my stance, I don't know. I am not going to address your blood bank diversion until you actually answer the question I posed. So how do you think our nation has come to the set of laws it has? Some mysterious burning bush or computer in a cave run by "them"? We`ve come to the set of laws we have......painstakingly, over hundreds of years and thousands of cases. By and for Americans with in the framework, process and authority set forth by the founders hundreds of years ago. How is it you figure you`re not subject to those same, democratically passed laws? If you think the government has no authority to make abortion legal......go ahead and try to stop someone......but don`t stop till after the hysterically horrified pregnant woman calls 911 screaming she`s being assaulted by a stranger. Then get back to us......... let us know how it turned out.

tazzygirl -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:31:31 PM)
Guess next he will be saying Miranda Rights should be over turned as well.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Really? What authority does the Federal government have in deciding whether or not abortions are legal? That answer is "no authority." I am not saying the Federal Government needs to outlaw abortions. I am saying that the Federal Government has no authority to have an opinion on this. Period. End of discussion. And I am saying the government has every right to decide what is legal or not. What is your basis that it does not? If we take the OP's stance that this is issue is a moral one, then what right does the Federal Government have to make a moral judgment? It has none. When things come down to moral judgment, it's no longer about laws, but about religious beliefs. I still don't understand what the fuck your issue is with my stance. You can bitch all you want about my personal belief, but I'm not trying to force you to follow my belief. Why is that a problem? Why is it you can't see that I want government to make no moral judgments. This isn't about civil rights. This is about the morality of killing a fetus. Is it right to kill a fetus? Depending on your belief system, you'll either say, yes or no. Since Government isn't about morality, but law (see, there just isn't any room for empathy or sympathy in right or wrong), making moral judgments or forcing moral judgments on others is wrong. Not only am I saying that the Fed's have no authority to decide that abortion is legal, I'm also saying that the Fed's have no authority to decide that abortion is illegal. I'm not trying to take away your ability to decide whether or not to kill a fetus. quote: The rest of your post is not worth discussing. Of course not. You have no argument. And, you also have no answer to my question.

SoftBonds -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Firstly, it means that any decision about abortion rests on convictions that are intrinsically religious for purposes of the Free Exercise clause and therefore protected. Secondly, it means that government action to prevent abortion implicitly endorses a particular religious view against all others in violation of the Establishment clause. Given that religious beliefs seem to be inextricable from this debate, I thought that was an interesting take on the issue. What do you think? Here's what's interesting, Kirata: I completely agree. I am not "for" overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm for repealing it. If we overturn it, the Fed's are still making a decision for which they have no authority. It needs to be repealed, rescinded, whatever it's called. On abortion threads, I have always claimed that I, personally, am Pro-Life, but that Government has no authority to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Edited to ask: If the Federal Government pays for abortions or funds organizations that provide abortions, is that, too, implicitly endorsing a particular religious belief? Agreed. Likewise, if the government takes a woman's freedom to get a medical procedure (such as an abortion) from her, it is "paying for," a particular religious belief, and also violating the 5th amendment protections regarding taking property without due compensation. Unless you can show me where states give a woman the price surrogate mothers charge for every baby they agree not to abort... Of course, another issue is whether the government can pay for voluntary medical procedures if it saves the government money???

tazzygirl -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:51:13 PM)
I answered the only question you asked. The rest of your previous post was a personal rant. I do not agree that this is strictly a moral issue, because its also a medical one. quote: If we take the OP's stance that this is issue is a moral one, then what right does the Federal Government have to make a moral judgment? It has none. When things come down to moral judgment, it's no longer about laws, but about religious beliefs. I have also disagreed that this is a moral issue. Morality has no business in medical decisions. Again, that is the reasoning behind bringing in transplants or blood banks. Both are in direct opposition to people's morals, yet no one is screaming for them to be banned, or to have the government out of them. I am glad you can stand on your moral grounds and decide for the country of people who have a huge variety of moral beliefs as to what is right or wrong. You do not decide for me. My Doctor and I do. quote: I still don't understand what the fuck your issue is with my stance. You can bitch all you want about my personal belief, but I'm not trying to force you to follow my belief. Why is that a problem? Why is it you can't see that I want government to make no moral judgments. By stating that the government has no place allowing me access to a medical procedure, you are indeed forcing your morality upon me. How do you think this got to the SC to begin with? People decided, based upon their own morality, that women should be denied access to abortions.... something that was in fact legal at one point. Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561 So, tell me, beyond the fact that child birth fever were killing women, which is why the medical community decided to control abortions, a situation that has since been rectified, why were abortions made illegal? We both know the answer.

SoftBonds -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/17/2012 8:51:22 PM)
quote: Everlast Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love He said don't worry about a thing baby doll I'm the man you've been dreamin' of But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call And she sweared god damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the doors They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore [CHORUS] God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes 'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose Then you really might know what it's like [x4] I realize this is from a song, but I have heard the bolded words a lot from abortion protestors. IMHO they care a lot more about the "sinner and whore," than the killer part. Leastwise I seldom see those folks at adoption agencies, taking in foster kids, or even offering support (financial, moral, or even just comfort) to teenage pregnant mothers.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 5:44:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I completely agree. I am not "for" overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm for repealing it. If we overturn it, the Fed's are still making a decision for which they have no authority. It needs to be repealed, rescinded, whatever it's called. What decision are they making? Are they telling women they have to get one? quote: Edited to ask: If the Federal Government pays for abortions or funds organizations that provide abortions, is that, too, implicitly endorsing a particular religious belief? The government funds blood banks, for example. There are a few religions who do not agree with such. Are you saying the government endorses a religion by funding those? Really? What authority does the Federal government have in deciding whether or not abortions are legal? That answer is "no authority." I am not saying the Federal Government needs to outlaw abortions. I am saying that the Federal Government has no authority to have an opinion on this. Period. End of discussion. But do get all puffed up and indignant. I have said time and time again that I am not "for" barring anyone from getting an abortion. Not a single person who wants to do that. For me, and me only, I find abortions to be reprehensible and infringing on the rights of the fetus. And, that is a moral stand I take. For me. Not for you. Not for your neighbor. Not for anyone else, but me. You don't agree that abortion is morally reprehensible. Good for you. We actually agree that abortions should not be illegal. Why you piss and moan so much about my stance, I don't know. I am not going to address your blood bank diversion until you actually answer the question I posed. So how do you think our nation has come to the set of laws it has? Some mysterious burning bush or computer in a cave run by "them"? We`ve come to the set of laws we have......painstakingly, over hundreds of years and thousands of cases. By and for Americans with in the framework, process and authority set forth by the founders hundreds of years ago. How is it you figure you`re not subject to those same, democratically passed laws? If you think the government has no authority to make abortion legal......go ahead and try to stop someone......but don`t stop till after the hysterically horrified pregnant woman calls 911 screaming she`s being assaulted by a stranger. Then get back to us......... let us know how it turned out. I know how we got to where we are, regarding laws. I get it. I don't care if every law was passed unanimously. If it doesn't fall under an enumerated power, or is "necessary and proper" for an enumerated power, the law is un-Constitutional. At what point does any ruling on abortion fall directly under an enumerated power, or is a "necessary and proper" policy under an enumerated power? If those two questions can't be answered, the Federal Government has no, zero, zip, nil, zilch, nada, etc. authority to make a ruling. Period. As for the idiotic recommendation regarding stopping a pregnant woman, please re-read the section above that is quoted from my post. I have colored, enlarged and bolded the relevant sentences that are relevant. Once more, I do not believe the Federal Government has any authority to make abortion legal, nor to make abortion illegal. They do not have the authority to rule one way or the other. What that means, is the Fed's can't make illegal, either.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 6:02:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I answered the only question you asked. The rest of your previous post was a personal rant. I do not agree that this is strictly a moral issue, because its also a medical one. Really?!? So, if someone is morally against abortions, they are morons because to kill or not to kill a fetus isn't a moral issue? There are few cases where an abortion is actually a medical necessity. At that point, the mother and father of the fetus (provided the father is man enough to be involved) have to decide if the medical impact supercedes the moral issue. But, again, that isn't up to the Federal Government to decide. That is up to the mother and father (again, if the father is man enough to remain involved with the woman and the pregnancy), to decide. If a woman could die by carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, is it okay for the doctor to force her to have an abortion against her will to save her life? Or, is the decision to carry to term hers? I vote the latter. I know you do, too. Did you not recall seeing my edit? You responded after the edit was posted, and quoted it in your first reply to my reply. Lemme quote it for you quote: (tazzygirl)What decision are they making? Are they telling women they have to get one? quote: (Me)Edited to ask: If the Federal Government pays for abortions or funds organizations that provide abortions, is that, too, implicitly endorsing a particular religious belief? (tazzygirl)The government funds blood banks, for example. There are a few religions who do not agree with such. Are you saying the government endorses a religion by funding those? So, you saw the question. You read the question. You didn't answer the question. You, instead, ask a related question, which still doesn't answer the question. quote: I am glad you can stand on your moral grounds and decide for the country of people who have a huge variety of moral beliefs as to what is right or wrong. You do not decide for me. My Doctor and I do. Totally agree. My beliefs are my own, and do not, nor should not, be of any consequence to you. quote: quote: I still don't understand what the fuck your issue is with my stance. You can bitch all you want about my personal belief, but I'm not trying to force you to follow my belief. Why is that a problem? Why is it you can't see that I want government to make no moral judgments. By stating that the government has no place allowing me access to a medical procedure, you are indeed forcing your morality upon me. How do you think this got to the SC to begin with? People decided, based upon their own morality, that women should be denied access to abortions.... something that was in fact legal at one point. I am stating, for the umpteenth time, that government doesn't have the authority to bar you or allow you access to abortions. It is something that simply isn't up to them. quote: So, tell me, beyond the fact that child birth fever were killing women, which is why the medical community decided to control abortions, a situation that has since been rectified, why were abortions made illegal? We both know the answer. I don't care why abortions were made illegal. I really don't. I'd say "read my lips," but you can't. So, read, very carefully, what I am stating, with conviction and absolutely zero moral qualms: Abortions should NOT be illegal. Period. Was that clear enough? If not, how many more times must I state it before you understand?

farglebargle -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 6:28:07 AM)
quote: Really?!? So, if someone is morally against abortions, they are morons because to kill or not to kill a fetus isn't a moral issue? I would say it's more that they don't have the good manners to keep their 19th Century anti-Scientific opinions to themselves. They're PERSONS when they are BORN. ( See also: Long Form Birth Certificate ).

Marc2b -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 6:46:41 AM)
quote: In his book, Life's Dominion, Ronald Dworkin, Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford Universtiy and Professor of Law at New York University, argues that disputes over the morality of abortion are fundamentally religious in nature, because they turn on an individual's convictions about the place and value of human life in the universe. Whether or not you accept that analysis, it gives rise to interesting consequences... Firstly, it means that any decision about abortion rests on convictions that are intrinsically religious for purposes of the Free Exercise clause and therefore protected. Secondly, it means that government action to prevent abortion implicitly endorses a particular religious view against all others in violation of the Establishment clause. Reference: Litigation Essentials, Lexus Nexis Given that religious beliefs seem to be inextricable from this debate, I thought that was an interesting take on the issue. What do you think? It is an interesting take on the issue but ultimately it doesn’t hold up because it falsely presumes that morality is inextricably linked to religion. Ironically, the notion that “no religion equals no morality” is an argument used by Christian fundamentalists and they often site abortion as one of the immoral consequences of secularism/atheism. Dworkin’s argument puts them in something of a bind. If they accept the argument as an affirmation of their “no religion (by which they mean their religion, though they seldom say it out loud) equals no morality” position then they concede to the legal point that attempts to restrict or outlaw abortion are inherently an unconstitutional imposition of religion and they are forced to fall back on their unsupportable (not that they don’t try) notion that there is no separation of church and state… in short, they expose their desire to implement a theocracy. If they reject the argument then they reject their “no religion equals” no morality argument which undermines just about every argument they make in regards to evolution, homosexuality, birth control, etc.

Kirata -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 6:47:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I would say it's more that they don't have the good manners to keep their 19th Century anti-Scientific opinions to themselves. I do not think the difference of opinion is a difference between scientific knowledge and uncritical thinking. The rationality that grew out of the Enlightenment, which we associate with the rise of natural science, is a hard rationality specifically designed to argue about the nature of the natural world. It cannot deal with the world of human experience, a world of contradictions, of moral complexity and paradox. It cannot approach the realities that are most central to the human experience: it cannot understand a poem, it cannot grasp love. Those who adhere exclusively to that kind of hard rationalism are incapable of framing the human condition. To do so is the province of the Humanities, not the Sciences. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 6:56:32 AM)
I've always felt this to be true. There are many religions that do not have an explicit prohibition on abortion. Abortion has to be left to the individual's choice. To do anything else infringes on other people's exercise of their religion. Period.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 7:41:44 AM)
I cannot think of a single religion that treats a miscarriage as an actual death. There are no required death rites for a miscarriage in any major religion. If the unborn were really considered lives/souls, why are there no death rites? Almost all the religions have the belief that if the proper death rites are not performed the soul will NOT be saved. So why do ALL religions allow for these "souls" to go unsaved for eternity? And for those of you who believe abortion is killing a human being, I just want to understand if your position on all killings is the same i.e., if you feel the taking of another human being's life is NEVER justifiable. So I assume that you think war is categorically wrong because it involves killing others (and these others are not always professional soldiers - the victims in a war can include civilians and children and babies and even the unborn). And I assume allowing someone to die because they lack health insurance to pay for expensive treatment is also wrong. And I assume every death from famine is also a "killing" because we failed to intervene. So those who picket the abortion clinics should also be anti-war anti-killing anti-death of any kind. If they are concerned about the souls of the unborn, then why are they not concerned about innocent lives that are lost in other ways. Why are they not paying for poor people who need treatment or food to save their lives? Why are they not anti-war? If all souls are the same, why such a disproportionate emphasis on one type of "killing", when people die all the time around us who could be saved if different decisions were made. Why, for religious people, is allowing a starving child to die above moral reproach, but allowing abortion a sin? I ask this because while all religions seem to have in common some sort of "thou shalt not kill" rule, almost every religion has exceptions. In other words, NO religion that I can think of actually has the rule "thou shalt not kill....ever" or "thou shalt not allow to die". So first of all I would argue that no religion treats the unborn as a life. Not one. And even for those of you who feel that a fetus is a life, then explain to me why you think enabling the killing or death of any human being is ever morally justified? Why is it more important to protect the unborn than it is to save the people we currently have on the planet? If most religions don't even require death rites for a miscarried fetus then why do we sit back while actual human beings/lives/souls die every day at the hands of others? Truly, this makes ZERO sense to me. If every anti-abortion activist actually tried to help LIVING human beings/souls, the world would be a much better place. Anti-abortion advocacy - what a truly misplaced moral effort.

Kirata -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 7:46:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b It is an interesting take on the issue but ultimately it doesn’t hold up because it falsely presumes that morality is inextricably linked to religion. SternSkipper asked a related question... quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper can you tell us how he factors in those who are atheist... I mean, you can't really say a person who just maintains a personal code of conduct is practicing a religion, can you? I think he is suggesting that for purposes of law some kinds of questions are best regarded as fundamentally religious. Note the italics. To do so need not invoke any concept of organized creedal religion, let alone any version of Theism, because for some people those questions may have non-religious answers. What I think is at issue here, in Thomas Jefferson's words, is "liberty of conscience." Our Constitution ... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose. Regarding questions about the place and value of human life in the universe as fundamentally religious for purposes of law is not intended to equate, and does not equate, morality with "religion" but rather secures to each citizen the protection of his conscience. Similarly, courts have treated Atheism as a religion for purposes of law to the same end, namely: protecting liberty of conscience. K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 8:00:06 AM)
quote: Really?!? So, if someone is morally against abortions, they are morons because to kill or not to kill a fetus isn't a moral issue? Where did I call anyone a moron? I said its a medical issue because its a medical procedure. quote: If a woman could die by carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, is it okay for the doctor to force her to have an abortion against her will to save her life? Or, is the decision to carry to term hers? I vote the latter. I know you do, too. Exactly. The same as having an abortion, thats her decision as well, regardless of your feelings. After all, if you believe in heaven and hell, the pearly gates and all that, are you the one who will be standing there on judgement day or her? quote: But, again, that isn't up to the Federal Government to decide. That is up to the mother and father (again, if the father is man enough to remain involved with the woman and the pregnancy), to decide. But what happened is that the states decided it was THIERS to decide, based upon their moral beliefs, regardless of the morals of the people they represent. That is when the SC steps in.. and that IS within the power to the Federal government, to decide the disputes of the people vs the states. quote: I am stating, for the umpteenth time, that government doesn't have the authority to bar you or allow you access to abortions. It is something that simply isn't up to them. No, what you said was the federal government doesnt have that right. And what I am saying is that as long as the states feel they can make moral decisions on my behalf, the federal government can as well. quote: I don't care why abortions were made illegal. I really don't. I'd say "read my lips," but you can't. So, read, very carefully, what I am stating, with conviction and absolutely zero moral qualms: Abortions should NOT be illegal. Period. Was that clear enough? If not, how many more times must I state it before you understand? Now you are coming across as a moron. Of course it matters. They could come after anything based upon your attitude here. Do not allow your moral beliefs to cloud your judgement. If Roe vs Wade is repealed, the effects could be staggering for many controversial issues.

Marc2b -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 8:25:40 AM)
quote: I think he is suggesting that for purposes of law some kinds of questions are best regarded as fundamentally religious. Note the italics. To do so need not invoke any concept of organized creedal religion, let alone any version of Theism, because for some people those questions may have non-religious answers. What I think is at issue here, in Thomas Jefferson's words, is "liberty of conscience." Our Constitution ... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose. Regarding questions about the place and value of human life in the universe as fundamentally religious for purposes of law is not intended to equate, and does not equate, morality with "religion" but rather secures to each citizen the protection of his conscience. Similarly, courts have treated Atheism as a religion for purposes of law to the same end, namely: protecting liberty of conscience. Whether it intends to equate or not it still does. To equate "the value of human life" with religion is to equate morality with religion because the only feasible objection to abortion is a moral objection... the killing of a human being (and a helpless one at that). This does not in and of itself equate a lack of morality with a lack of religion but if one contends that abortion is not a religious issue then they concede that morality is not tied to religion.

Moonhead -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 8:39:08 AM)
Myself, I've always found the notion that Religion is the only possible basis for morality incredibly offensive. As I've said before, all that is required is a little empathy, and a belief that this world is all any of us will ever experience can just as easily be a reason to treat other people better as it is to treat them worse. If this time is all we get, ruining it for others is far more venal and objectionable than it would be if the worthy will be rewarded with special privileges after dying...

Kirata -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 9:01:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Whether it intends to equate or not it still does. To equate "the value of human life" with religion is to equate morality with religion No it is not equating "morality with religion," because it does not dispute that such questions can have a non-religious answers -- any more than treating Atheism as a religion for purposes of law disputes the fact that it is not one. K.

Kirata -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 9:04:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I've always found the notion that Religion is the only possible basis for morality incredibly offensive. And I've never liked turnips. But neither is relevant to what Dworkin is proposing. K.

Moonhead -> RE: Abortion and Religion (4/18/2012 9:19:22 AM)
Really? You don't think that religion and atheism being morally equivalent is important to the context of Dworkin's argument, then?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625