Freedom of religion

[mikeymikec]

As to how Christians loop in slavery with abortion, that's a new one to me. I'm unabashedly pro-life, but I've never once heard that argument in conversation.

It is a new argument AFAIK, I only started hearing it here in the last few months. It's been used in this thread too.

Are you pro-life in the sense of that's how you think the law should be, or from a personal perspective?

 

[mikeymikec]

Well I was atheist/agnostic since 15 and I did hold some pro-life views after that for some time. However I can't say how much was influenced by previous held religious outlook.

I find it odd that I can trace back almost all my old/previously-held (vaguely political) opinions to my parents and a Catholic upbringing, yet I've been pro-choice for as long as I can remember, despite my mother having strong pro-life views despite her choice of profession (nurse then midwife). I wonder whether she kept quiet about that topic because of the obvious conflict with her work and she knew she couldn't marry up those conflicting factors herself. I think I ended up hearing about the purely science part of her job, so my views started with a more scientific view of the topic. After she retired she became more up-front about being pro-life I think. Maybe Catholicism being awkward about the topic of sex also played a role in her being quiet about it during my adolescence.

 

[whm1974]

I find it odd that I can trace back almost all my old/previously-held (vaguely political) opinions to my parents and a Catholic upbringing, yet I've been pro-choice for as long as I can remember, despite my mother having strong pro-life views despite her choice of profession (nurse then midwife). I wonder whether she kept quiet about that topic because of the obvious conflict with her work and she knew she couldn't marry up those conflicting factors herself. I think I ended up hearing about the purely science part of her job, so my views started with a more scientific view of the topic. After she retired she became more up-front about being pro-life I think. Maybe Catholicism being awkward about the topic of sex also played a role in her being quiet about it during my adolescence.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much much I was pro life in my late teens and early twenties I actually was and not just indifferent to to the whole issue. Looking back I think I was more on the right due to being gun nut then any actual agreement as I strongly disagree with many of the viewpoints held by them.

 

[Ventanni]

It is a new argument AFAIK, I only started hearing it here in the last few months. It's been used in this thread too.

Are you pro-life in the sense of that's how you think the law should be, or from a personal perspective?

Great question, but a complex answer. I'm one of the [very] few who sees abortion as a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. Instead I see the root of the issue defined in one's own personal identity. This is an extremely deep and complex issue as one person may view themselves as highly valuable in the area of their profession, but at the very same time may not see themselves as valuable enough to have a successful relationship. Or from another perspective, one may place tremendous value in the ability to invest in themselves (rest, exercise, diet, etc), but at the same time see themselves as unworthy of having a good paying job. Bottom line is the more people see themselves as less valuable in all areas of their life, the easier it becomes to dismiss the life of another. How can one value the life of another individual if one doesn't value themselves?

That's why I'm not surprised when I see abortion rates (high or low) in American across different cultures coincide with things like fatherhood, education, illegal drug and firearm usage, etc.

At the end of the day, that's where I see the law as more of a waste of time. I'd rather go after the identity issue and see abortion solve itself.

 

[Paratus]

So should we have children at all then, since it necessarily entails a varying natural risk of death throughout their life cycle?

Everything we do has risk of death. Virtually everything we do doesn’t have a risk of death greater than 1%.

If you insist that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a born person in every way then I would say it’s immoral to attempt to have children when the risk of death is 30-70%.

I highly doubt you would put one of your kids through an elective process with a 30-70% chance of death.

Now in reality a fertilized egg is not a person yet. There is nothing approaching a functioning brain. There’s no one who dies if the zygote fails to implant.

Later in the pregnancy the risk drops significantly so by the time the fetus basically is equivalent to a born kid there’s not much risk of death.

It’s also why you see couples who want children heart broken when they have a late term miscarriage and why you never see even the most ardent pro-lifer upset when that fertilized egg fails to implant.

Her focus was plainly on the incidence and defition of late term abortion, not the motive.

Guttmacher's study sampled about 300 post-abortive women around the country and came to exactly such a factual basis.



So then you don't support, for example, New York's new abortion law, which permits abortion up till birth if the "health" of the mother is at risk?

Ok now you are moving the goal posts. Your original question was about aborting a healthy fetus and an assumed healthy mother.

I’m absolutely fine with abortion up until birth if the mothers health is at stake. One, because if the baby is viable they won’t abort it and two because deciding to have a child does not automatically mean a woman gives up her right life.

The decision on how much risk to life should be accepted should be left up to the woman, her doctor, and her family. Not priests or politicians.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You dont let them enact any laws based on their core beliefs that are derived from their religion.

You do realize what you just said is almost impossible to do? First of all who determines what a religions core beliefs are? Second of all there are places in the Bible that I am sure even you would agree are not bad at all! Take for example the 10 commandments? Then there are common sense things that people believe and that are in the bible!
The problem is many religious people don`t mind their own business and try to live their lives as they should!

 

[whm1974]

You do realize what you just said is almost impossible to do? First of all who determines what a religions core beliefs are? Second of all there are places in the Bible that I am sure even you would agree are not bad at all! Take for example the 10 commandments? Then there are common sense things that people believe and that are in the bible!
The problem is many religious people don`t mind their own business and try to live their lives as they should!

And how many of those commandment have anything to with ethics and morality? The first one makes no sense.

 

[WelshBloke]

... Second of all there are places in the Bible that I am sure even you would agree are not bad at all! Take for example the 10 commandments?.

Only 3 of those should be allowed anywhere near the statute books! (And one of those is dependent on context!)

 

[JEDIYoda]

And how many of those commandment have anything to with ethics and morality? The first one makes no sense.

So lets be real plain....who determines ethics and who determines morality? or what determines ethics or morality?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Only 3 of those should be allowed anywhere near the statute books! (And one of those is dependent on context!)

I agree thre 10 commandments was not a good choice.
but my point still stands -- who determines what is moral or ethical??What determines what is moral or ethical?

 

[whm1974]

So lets be real plain....who determines ethics and who determines morality? or what determines ethics or morality?

For the last, what promotes the Well Being of both the Individual and the Society he lives in. Are your actions beneficial or harmful to yourself and others?

 

[JEDIYoda]

For the last, what promotes the Well Being of both the Individual and the Society he lives in. Are your actions beneficial or harmful to yourself and others?

You see that a bunch of double speak….you cannot have it both ways.....sorry..
What you are saying sounds all well and good. But you know very well somebody or as group of people need to be able to decide if your actions are beneficial or harmful to you and others. There has to be set rules and they must be followed...everybody knows!
If we go by what you just said above ----- How is somebody being religious hurting others?
Should children be allowed to make decisions that go contreary to their parents desires or beliefs?

 

[whm1974]

You see that a bunch of double speak….you cannot have it both ways.....sorry..
What you are saying sounds all well and good. But you know very well somebody or as group of people need to be able to decide if your actions are beneficial or harmful to you and others. There has to be set rules and they must be followed...everybody knows!
If we go by what you just said above ----- How is somebody being religious hurting others?
Should children be allowed to make decisions that go contreary to their parents desires or beliefs?

Who is saying that being religious is hurting others? By itself it isn't. Who set the "rules", why, and how did they determine that these are the "rules" everyone should follow?

 

[pmv]

This is the first time in my life I've ever actually looked up and read the 10 commandments.

Some of them are very familiar, however. I've definitely heard 6 to 10 before somewhere (seems that coveting your neighbour's husband is OK, though?)

But I never realised before how lacking in a sense of priorities they seem to be. I honestly didn't know that 'obeying the Sabbath' was even on the list. Seems strange that nipping into the office on a Sunday (or is it a Saturday?) should be, by implication, equal in importance to murder.

Even odder, though, is that the list seems so front-laden in terms of the time and words spent on it. I mean, it goes into quite extensive and verbose detail on the 'craven images' and 'working-on-Sundays' stuff, before rapidly whizzing through murder, theft and screwing around (without any of the labouring the point or detail about the penalties that it includes with regard to the graven images bit), ending with all that covetting.

Honestly, it's just really oddly structured. Makes me wonder what the thought-processes were behind it.

[I'm sure this observation must have been made before, but seriously I've never looked them up before]

Hmmm, if I've understood the website sources correctly, the Jewish version is much less lop-sided, without all the excess verbiage on the first ones. Interesting.

 

[whm1974]

This is the first time in my life I've ever actually looked up and read the 10 commandments.

Some of them are very familiar, however. I've definitely heard 6 to 10 before somewhere (seems that coveting your neighbour's husband is OK, though?)

But I never realised before how lacking in a sense of priorities they seem to be. I honestly didn't know that 'obeying the Sabbath' was even on the list. Seems strange that nipping into the office on a Sunday (or is it a Saturday?) should be, by implication, equal in importance to murder.

Even odder, though, is that the list seems so front-laden in terms of the time and words spent on it. I mean, it goes into quite extensive and verbose detail on the 'craven images' and 'working-on-Sundays' stuff, before rapidly whizzing through murder, theft and screwing around (without any of the labouring the point or detail about the penalties that it includes with regard to the graven images bit), ending with all that covetting.

Honestly, it's just really oddly structured. Makes me wonder what the thought-processes were behind it.

[I'm sure this observation must have been made before, but seriously I've never looked them up before]

Hmmm, if I've understood the website sources correctly, the Jewish version is much less lop-sided, without all the excess verbiate on the first ones. Interesting.

it does make me wonder if the person(s) who wrote them were considered to be a bit "odd ball" by the rest the society they were in.

 

[soulcougher73]

So lets be real plain....who determines ethics and who determines morality? or what determines ethics or morality?

If it was up to me non-religious people would make them, in so far as making laws from them. They can hear religious peoples ideas/moral beliefs, and if they agree with them, then great. That means it was a good unbiased non-religious moral that suits all people fairly. But if the religious moral is found not good, then that is the end of it. It doesn't pass the non-religious muster test and we wont make laws as a society around it.

And then i would have this moral list looked at/peer reviewed by another non-religious group of people to make sure it passes the muster there as well.

You may disagree and that is totally fine. I'm not saying all of religious values/morals are bad. But we need to make sure they apply fairly to all citizens and not just one religion or another.

 

[whm1974]

If it was up to me non-religious people would make them, in so far as making laws from them. They can hear religious peoples ideas/moral beliefs, and if they agree with them, then great. That means it was a good unbiased non-religious moral that suits all people fairly. But if the religious moral is found not good, then that is the end of it. It doesn't pass the non-religious muster test and we wont make laws as a society around it.

And then i would have this moral list looked at/peer reviewed by another non-religious group of people to make sure it passes the muster there as well.

You may disagree and that is totally fine. I'm not saying all of religious values/morals are bad. But we need to make sure they apply fairly to all citizens and not just one religion or another.

I should add that people more or less follow a moral/ethical code according to what values they hold.

 

[whm1974]

I should add that people more or less follow a moral/ethical code according to what values they hold.

This feels a bit simplistic. anyone care to help me out here?

 

[mikeymikec]

This is the first time in my life I've ever actually looked up and read the 10 commandments.

Now for added fun and games, look up the variations on the 10 Commandments depending on the religion you've looked them up for.

 

[dawp]

This feels a bit simplistic. anyone care to help me out here?

not just what they hold but what society instills in them. and society does change over time.

used to be fights to the death were considered entertainment, now the winner would be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

morals do not happen in a vacuum.

 

[mikeymikec]

At the end of the day, that's where I see the law as more of a waste of time. I'd rather go after the identity issue and see abortion solve itself.

Except that abortion will never "solve itself". Aside from issues stemming from intentional pregnancies (health concerns etc), people make mistakes (or get raped) and people get pregnant. There's no stopping that.

 

[Ventanni]

Except that abortion will never "solve itself". Aside from issues stemming from intentional pregnancies (health concerns etc), people make mistakes (or get raped) and people get pregnant. There's no stopping that.

Maybe "solve itself" was too strong of language to use. Perhaps "manage itself" would be better?

You're right. There's no stopping the health related, incest, rape situations, but those are a small portion of overall abortions. Most abortions occur because the parents simply don't want the child, and that's either because of financial, relational, or personal reasons. But instead of focusing on what I can't control (rape, incest, and health risks to some extent), I would rather focus on what I can: Fatherhood, personal development, education level, etc. In cultures that invest heavily in these things, you see a corresponding reduction in abortion rates.

My point is this though. Most abortions occur because the parent doesn't want the child. You can cover the symptom with a law, but you won't fix the root of why so many abortions are occurring (43+ million since 1973). So let's stop the nonsense and go after the root, shall we?

 

[brandonbull]

freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Because the US government is not in the business of mandating your religion.

 

[mikeymikec]

Maybe "solve itself" was too strong of language to use. Perhaps "manage itself" would be better?

You're right. There's no stopping the health related, incest, rape situations, but those are a small portion of overall abortions. Most abortions occur because the parents simply don't want the child, and that's either because of financial, relational, or personal reasons. But instead of focusing on what I can't control (rape, incest, and health risks to some extent), I would rather focus on what I can: Fatherhood, personal development, education level, etc. In cultures that invest heavily in these things, you see a corresponding reduction in abortion rates.

My point is this though. Most abortions occur because the parent doesn't want the child. You can cover the symptom with a law, but you won't fix the root of why so many abortions are occurring (43+ million since 1973). So let's stop the nonsense and go after the root, shall we?

People like having sex? There's no root cause here, apart from that. Even if the most common reason for abortion is as you said, you cited three root causes right off the bat and none of those have a quick and easy fix. Just taking the US as a single example, from my outsider's perspective at any rate, you'd have to make most peoples' preconceptions change to an unrecognisable extent: I mean christ, many Americans haven't the foggiest idea what socialism means yet they subscribe ideas like universal healthcare to it and then call it evil. Basic empathy for one's fellow citizens seems have gone right out of the window.

Even if I take your 43m figure at face value, that's since 1973. So much has changed since then that it makes the figure utterly irrelevant.

 

[whm1974]

People like having sex? There's no root cause here, apart from that. Even if the most common reason for abortion is as you said, you cited three root causes right off the bat and none of those have a quick and easy fix. Just taking the US as a single example, from my outsider's perspective at any rate, you'd have to make most peoples' preconceptions change to an unrecognisable extent: I mean christ, many Americans haven't the foggiest idea what socialism means yet they subscribe ideas like universal healthcare to it and then call it evil. Basic empathy for one's fellow citizens seems have gone right out of the window.

Even if I take your 43m figure at face value, that's since 1973. So much has changed since then that it makes the figure utterly irrelevant.

Having children is a big responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly at all. Social-Ecoconmic issues are valid reasons not to have them.