Notes From The Didache On The Early Christian View Of Abortion

[Cameron]

What does it matter what you accept as proof. People are allowed to vote and vote their values.

No dispute there, but voting to enforce your religious views on others is not really in keeping with American values of respect, freedom, and separation of church and state. So voters who vote as you described are disrespecting American values in favor of religious ones. They should consider instead moving to a religious authoritarian state like Iran or a secluded enclave like Warren Jeffs or Orthodox Jews.

 

[Gordy327]

No dispute there, but voting to enforce your religious views on others is not really in keeping with American values of respect, freedom, and separation of church and state. So voters who vote as you described are disrespecting American values in favor of religious ones. They should consider instead moving to a religious authoritarian state like Iran or a secluded enclave like Warren Jeffs or Orthodox Jews.

Let's face it, many voters are irrational and vote based on their feelings rather than by reason.

 

[CLAX1911]

No dispute there, but voting to enforce your religious views on others is not really in keeping with American values of respect, freedom, and separation of church and state.

This is why separation of church and state is a misnomer and actually not constitutional. What the First amendment says it is Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. We're interfering with the exercise thereof. It doesn't say religious people have no say in the government whatsoever.

So voters who vote as you described are disrespecting American values in favor of religious ones.

The value of the separation of church and state which is a misnomer and that people don't share. Presumed American values by certain people. And I don't see how it's establishing a state religion or preventing the free exercise of any other religion.

They should consider instead moving to a religious authoritarian state like Iran or a secluded enclave like Warren Jeffs or Orthodox Jews.

Why there's no rule against them voting their values. In fact that's what democracy is. If your values were so popular why wouldn't they be voted for? I would argue that they are because there's a lot of religious people talking about how degenerate the US is.

So if anti-religious people are saying it's way too religious and religious people are saying it's way too hedonistic then I'm going to separate those two into the extremes and say it's probably just right.

 

[CLAX1911]

Let's face it, many voters are irrational and vote based on their feelings rather than by reason.

Everyone votes on their values. That's just people have different values than you and they have that right guaranteed by the Constitution and you lack in the ability to persuade.

I blame the arrogance

 

[Gordy327]

Everyone votes on their values. That's just people have different values than you and they have that right guaranteed by the Constitution and you lack in the ability to persuade.

I blame the arrogance

Like I said, people are irrational. Thanks for affirming that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Like I said, people are irrational. Thanks for affirming that.

All people are irrational.

 

[Gordy327]

This is why separation of church and state is a misnomer and actually not constitutional. What the First amendment says it is Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. We're interfering with the exercise thereof. It doesn't say religious people have no say in the government whatsoever

Separation is the basis of freedom of/from religion. It's also affirmed by the SCOTUS.

The value of the separation of church and state which is a misnomer and that people don't share. Presumed American values by certain people. And I don't see how it's establishing a state religion or preventing the free exercise of any other religion.

Separation is why there is no state religion and why everyone has free exercise.

Why there's no rule against them voting their values. In fact that's what democracy is. If your values were so popular why wouldn't they be voted for? I would argue that they are because there's a lot of religious people talking about how degenerate the US is.

I.e., people are irrational.

So if anti-religious people are saying it's way too religious and religious people are saying it's way too hedonistic then I'm going to separate those two into the extremes and say it's probably just right.

Religious people can say what they want. But their religion & beliefs are their own and should not be forced on anybody, especially through secular law.

 

[Gordy327]

All people are irrational.

True. Some more than others. That's the problem.

 

[CLAX1911]

Separation is the basis of freedom of/from religion. It's also affirmed by the SCOTUS.

That doesn't translate to religious people aren't allowed to vote their values. That is their First amendment freedom affirmed by the scotus as well.

Separation is why there is no state religion and why everyone has free exercise.

Agreed and there's no State religion.

I.e., people are irrational.

All people.

Religious people can say what they want. But their religion & beliefs are their own and should not be forced on anybody, especially through secular law.

Same with non-religious people.

 

[CLAX1911]

True. Some more than others. That's the problem.

I don't think there is a metric to determine how irrational someone is.

 

[Chomsky]

This forum is for discussion of abortion. Not the law or it would be more appropriate in Law & Order forum.

My topic stands as to why abortion is wrong.

The Didache is a fascinating document, but I notice you specifically brought Transubstantiation into the discussion taking a tack side-lining Catholics, and used the document to further your position on abortion.

Too bad you didn't use the Beliefs & Skepticism (Religion) forum for a full discussion of this very interesting document.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't think there is a metric to determine how irrational someone is.

Their lack of reasoning reflects irrationality. Especially if someone goes by feeling or belief.

 

[Gordy327]

That doesn't translate to religious people aren't allowed to vote their values. That is their First amendment freedom affirmed by the scotus as well.

I didn't say otherwise.

Agreed and there's no State religion.

And there shouldn't be. Neither should religion influence government or law.

All people

Some more than others.

Same with non-religious people.

Non-religious individuals are not trying to push their "values" onto others, especially not to the extent the religious do.

 

[CLAX1911]

I didn't say otherwise.

And they can vote their values and if you perceive it as some sort of religious viewpoint then that's your problem.

And there shouldn't be. Neither should religion influence government or law.

I don't think that's possible in a country with so many religious people. Unless you create a class that cannot vote because of the religious affiliation.

Some more than others.

Seems about equal

Non-religious individuals are not trying to push their "values" onto others, especially not to the extent the religious do.

It's called the majority. If you don't want to live in a majority Christian Nation perhaps it's time to find somewhere else. Or make an effort to forbid the religious people from voting.

 

[CLAX1911]

Their lack of reasoning reflects irrationality. Especially if someone goes by feeling or belief.

By lack of reasoning what do you mean? Lack of adherence to materialism? That's just subbing one religion for another how is that rational?

 

[Cameron]

This is why separation of church and state is a misnomer and actually not constitutional. What the First amendment says it is Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. We're interfering with the exercise thereof. It doesn't say religious people have no say in the government whatsoever.

The value of the separation of church and state which is a misnomer and that people don't share. Presumed American values by certain people. And I don't see how it's establishing a state religion or preventing the free exercise of any other religion.

Why there's no rule against them voting their values. In fact that's what democracy is. If your values were so popular why wouldn't they be voted for? I would argue that they are because there's a lot of religious people talking about how degenerate the US is.

So if anti-religious people are saying it's way too religious and religious people are saying it's way too hedonistic then I'm going to separate those two into the extremes and say it's probably just right.

Thanks for your opinion, but none of this has any basis in reality or American legal jurisprudence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thanks for your opinion, but none of this has any basis in reality or American legal jurisprudence.

American jurisprudence suggests that anything not mentioned the Constitution left up to the states. If Mississippi wants to flat out ban all abortions and Arizona once them to be free all the way up to 9 months that's the way it works. That is 100% American jurisprudence

 

[Cameron]

American jurisprudence suggests that anything not mentioned the Constitution left up to the states. If Mississippi wants to flat out ban all abortions and Arizona once them to be free all the way up to 9 months that's the way it works. That is 100% American jurisprudence

Going back to my original point, the Constitution prohibits violations of liberty without due process. Bodily sovereignty is a fundamental due process right and so there must be a compelling reason to intrude upon it. "God says so" is not a rational, let alone a compelling reason, for laws that intrude on bodily sovereignty. The right to due process derives from the federal constitution and is not subject to the prejudicial whims of backwards states.

 

[CLAX1911]

Going back to my original point, the Constitution prohibits violations of liberty without due process. Bodily sovereignty is a fundamental due process right and so there must be a compelling reason to intrude upon it.

And I don't that certainly an argument you can make. But states that don't permit abortion don't accept your ability to abort your baby is bodily sovereignty.

Trump does that feel free to make that argument.

"God says so" is not a rational, let alone a compelling reason, for laws that intrude on bodily sovereignty.

I'm not sure the court made that argument.

The right to due process derives from the federal constitution and is not subject to the prejudicial whims of backwards states.

I don't think you're going to get anywhere telling people they're backward for not agreeing with you. It comes off as snobbery and it's not very persuasive. Might want to try a different tact.

 

[Cameron]

And I don't that certainly an argument you can make. But states that don't permit abortion don't accept your ability to abort your baby is bodily sovereignty.

Trump does that feel free to make that argument.

I'm not sure the court made that argument.

I don't think you're going to get anywhere telling people they're backward for not agreeing with you. It comes off as snobbery and it's not very persuasive. Might want to try a different tact.

I don't think there is any rational argument that forcing a woman to carry life inside her for almost a year is not an infringement of bodily sovereignty. There might be non-religious arguments for forcing someone to do that, but that is not the subject of discussion. My point is that "God says so" is not a constitutionally acceptable reason for enacting a law that so seriously intrudes on such a fundamental aspect of personal autonomy and liberty. If a group of radical muslims in your community decided to vote for a law allowing the murder of infidels based on Sharia law, I highly doubt you would claim that was within their rights as voters.

I'm well aware bigots really hate being called bigots, but sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade. Meanwhile, conservatives are calling those who have abortions murderers, so....

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't think there is any rational argument that forcing a woman to carry life inside her for almost a year is not an infringement of bodily sovereignty.

Unless the state forced her to get pregnant the first place I don't think that it is.

There might be non-religious arguments for forcing someone to do that, but that is not the subject of discussion.

You wouldn't need one because it's biology forcing her to do that.

My point is that "God says so" is not a constitutionally acceptable reason for enacting a law that so seriously intrudes on such a fundamental aspect of personal autonomy and liberty.

I agree with you that's not constitutional so therefore it's not in any rulings or laws.

I'm well aware bigots really hate being called bigots, but sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade.

Good luck with that persuasive technique.

Meanwhile, conservatives are calling those who have abortions murderers, so....

I don't think you're ever convincing them so maybe you don't worry about that worry about the people you can convince.

Calling them all bigots probably hurts your cause a lot more than it helps it.

 

[Lursa]

Like I said, people are irrational. Thanks for affirming that.

Ask Christians which of their beliefs they cannot practice under the Const? The list is almost non-existent...so it's an empty whine when they claim they cannot exercise their religious beliefs legally in the US.

 

[Lovebug]

The Sermon on the Mount is marevelous.

Yes

Most try to live up to its messages.

Of course Christians do.

Maga Chrisitians are trying and succeding no less than you.

It's just that treating people like cattle isn't much of a try.

 

[Gordy327]

Ask Christians which of their beliefs they cannot practice under the Const? The list is almost non-existent...so it's an empty whine when they claim they cannot exercise their religious beliefs legally in the US.

Indeed. Or when they claim they're being persecuted, but cannot give 1 example of how.

 

[Gordy327]

By lack of reasoning what do you mean? Lack of adherence to materialism? That's just subbing one religion for another how is that rational?

That's just silly.