Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[Gordy327]

A 8 and a half month old fetus can be separated from its mother and survive. Why should we destroy the fetus instead of allowing it to live?

Who's seeking or performing abortion at 8.5 months?

Legally speaking, no one is forced to become pregnant. When a woman has consensual sex, they are consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant. I’m arguing that at a certain point in that pregnancy (around 20 weeks), a fetus has a brain that is as developed as a newborn

Irrelevant. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. A woman has the right to not have her body used to support another without consent. And consent can be withdrawn.

I’m not appealing to legality, I’m appealing to scientific reasoning

That's why your argument fails. Science doesn't make or establish law. Scientifically, the unborn is like a parasite or a tumor. Still doesn't change the fact no one is required limit or lose their bodily autonomy and have their body or bodily resources used to support another.

 

[volitleaire]

Applies to persons.

Person:

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

If a baby is aborted at 8 1/2 months, it can survive outside the womb.

Meanwhile, moral grey areas exist. Ergo, morality is subjective.

Presupposition. “Not everyone agrees on objective morality, therefore it does not exist”. “Everyone” doesn’t agree on anything. We still have objective math, science, and logic.

Yes, and it has you thinking you're correct.

If consciousness is a result of brain structure, then a fetus past 20-24 weeks has consciousness.

Color is determined by wavelength in the visible light spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum. Red light has a longer wavelength than blue light. We just assign "colors."

That’s what I said. Calling something “moral” or “immoral” is the same as calling light “red” or “blue”. You can quibble about what these terms mean, but the underlying mechanism remains the same.

Such laws only apply in the context of abortion. Fetal personhood is still not recognized by the federal government. Neither can a woman in Georgia or any other state be prohibited or prosecuted for having an abortion.

This is literally happening in ohio https://apnews.com/article/ohio-mis...ittany-watts-b8090abfb5994b8a23457b80cf3f27ce

Not very well.

That’s your opinion

No, slaves were simply not considered property anymore.

Which infringed on the slave owner’s right to own slaves (which existed in state constitutions).

Technically, they were considered 3/5 person. The unborn is 0/5 person.

Clever, but wrong

Restricting abortion infringes on the pregnant woman's rights and autonomy.

Yep, just like every law infringes on some freedom. It’s called the social contract.

Birth. I already explained this. Why do you keep asking the same question?

Saying “birth” is not an argument, it’s an assertion. What makes birth special?

See second statement.

See second statement.

So you don’t beleive in objective morality, but you believe we can objectively quantify what a person is? Seems inconsistent.

And a woman has the right to not want to be a mother too.

Restricting abortion does not force women to become pregnant. A woman becomes pregnant by engaging in sex, which means they consent to the risks associated with sex. Every consenting adult knows that pregnancy is a possible consequence. If you are sexually active, you should be vigilant in monitoring whether you are pregnant. By 20 weeks, it would be fairly obvious.

See second statement.

Unborn are not yet citizens. Also already explained.

Asserted, not explained.

 

[volitleaire]

Who's seeking or performing abortion at 8.5 months?

Engage with hypotheticals or admit your logic is inconsistent. If birth makes a fetus a person, then there should be nothing wrong with an abortion up to the moment of birth, right?

Irrelevant. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.

Yeah, it is. Sex is fundamentally a procreative activity.

A woman has the right to not have her body used to support another without consent.

Then they should have an abortion before the fetus is a person

And consent can be withdrawn.

Have an abortion if you don’t want to be pregnant. Don’t wait till the fetus can be considered a person

That's why your argument fails. Science doesn't make or establish law

other than scientific laws (which are objective facts about reality)

. Scientifically, the unborn is like a parasite or a tumor.

until it develops a human brain

Still doesn't change the fact no one is required limit or lose their bodily autonomy and have their body or bodily resources used to support another.

No one is required to become pregnant. Become being the active word there. If a woman really doesn’t want to be pregnant there are a myriad of options available to reduce that risk other than abortion.

 

[MamboDervish]

Being respectful is bad?

Being respectful of others by praying elsewhere, or praying silently, is bad?
Being respectful of others by waiting to pray is bad??
Is one's own god so impatient that it would matter to them?
Does one's own "omniscient" god not know ones prayers before they are uttered?

Sorry you had to shut up for 5 minutes while people observe their faith

Thank you. I got over it. But it would not surprise me if kids and teenagers raised as muslims or jews would be made much more uncomfortable than I was. And be made to feel as if they don't fit in - because they wouldn't.

I didn’t side step, I said feeling like you have to do something is not the same as being forced to do something.

Yeah ... tell that to future gang members.

In America, we have the freedom to be religious. This means others necessarily have to deal with being exposed to prayer.

No it doesn't. Wherever did you get that silly idea? We also have freedom FROM religion.

There is no detriment to being around someone praying to win a football game, you make it sound like they’re sacrificing ewes or something.

Only if the team is the Rams. Remember the "Embraceable Ewes" ?? 1974-1994

Seriously though, the notion of "praying to win a football game" is nothing short of sick. Just the idea that the Author of the Universe should give a **** which sports team wins is perverse, and nothing that should be taught or promoted in any school, not even a religious one. If you win, is it because god willed it? And if you lose, was that Divine will, too? Children should be spared any involvement, even by proximity, to such superstitious nonsense. Believing god chooses sides is exactly what leads to holy wars. History should have taught us that we've had more than enough of those already. The least we can do is spare our children that bloody future.

 

[volitleaire]

Being respectful of others by praying elsewhere, or praying silently, is bad?
Being respectful of others by waiting to pray is bad??
Is one's own god so impatient that it would matter to them?
Does one's own "omniscient" god not know ones prayers before they are uttered?

You kinda went off the rails here, I’m not debating theology. I just think American citizens have a right to pray in public.

Thank you. I got over it. But it would not surprise me if kids and teenagers raised as muslims or jews would be made much more uncomfortable than I was. And be made to feel as if they don't fit in - because they wouldn't.

They have a right to pray as they want, too. This is basic freedom of religion— you are free to practice your faith in public areas.

Yeah ... tell that to future gang members.

I’m pretty sure people do tell them that.

No it doesn't. Wherever did you get that silly idea? We also have freedom FROM religion.

No, you don’t. Freedom of religion is the freedom to choose to be religious or not. Freedom from religion is the right to not be exposed to religion. In America, we have the freedom of religion in schools. We consider faculty members imposing religious beliefs on students to be infringing on the student’s right to choosing their own religion.

Only if the team is the Rams. Remember the "Embraceable Ewes" ?? 1974-1994

lol, hadn’t heard of them.

Seriously though, the notion of "praying to win a football game" is nothing short of sick. Just the idea that the Author of the Universe should give a **** which sports team wins is perverse, and nothing that should be taught or promoted in any school, not even a religious one. If you win, is it because god willed it? And if you lose, was that Divine will, too? Children should be spared any involvement, even by proximity, to such superstitious nonsense. Believing god chooses sides is exactly what leads to holy wars. History should have taught us that we've had more than enough of those already. The least we can do is spare our children that bloody future.

Jesus dude, no one’s calling for holy war at the football game. The players just want to practice their faith the way they see fit. I can’t see anything wrong with it. I’m an atheist, and I couldn’t care less if someone believes in God or ghosts or the loch ness monster.

The problem in religion is when it is mandated by the state. If the high school decided that every student had to wear a cross, that’s clearly infringing on religious freedom. If a student decides to wear a cross, that’s their right.

 

[Gordy327]

Engage with hypotheticals or admit your logic is inconsistent. If birth makes a fetus a person, then there should be nothing wrong with an abortion up to the moment of birth, right?

Hypothetical are essentially meaningless and baiting tactics. Unless you can provide cases where elective abortions are being performed at 8.5 months, then you have nothing. And there is nothing wrong with abortion up to birth. But neither are they being performed.

Yeah, it is. Sex is fundamentally a procreative activity.

Sex has other functions besides procreation. Just because one engages in sex doesn't automatically mean they want pregnancy.

Then they should have an abortion before the fetus is a person

Have an abortion if you don’t want to be pregnant. Don’t wait till the fetus can be considered a person

Theu have (or should have) until birth, when the fetus is then a person.

other than scientific laws (which are objective facts about reality)

Scientific Laws do not equate to or make legal laws.

until it develops a human brain

Nope, not until it's physically separated from its gestator.

No one is required to become pregnant. Become being the active word there. If a woman really doesn’t want to be pregnant there are a myriad of options available to reduce that risk other than abortion.

No one is required to gestate either. And sometimes, birth control fails. Abortion is an option when an unwanted pregnancy occurs regardless and it's much safer, easier, and cheaper than gestation & birth.

 

[volitleaire]

Hypothetical are essentially meaningless and baiting tactics. Unless you can provide cases where elective abortions are being performed at 8.5 months, then you have nothing. And there is nothing wrong with abortion up to birth. But neither are they being performed.

So it isn’t happening, but if it was then it’d be fine. Just say that you are fine with it, I’m not going to call you a baby murderer or anything.

Sex has other functions besides procreation. Just because one engages in sex doesn't automatically mean they want pregnancy.

Humans have other incentives to have sex, but pregnancy and STDs are the factual risks to having sex.

Theu have (or should have) until birth, when the fetus is then a person.

Is the only thing you know how to respond with “birth”? You aren’t arguing anything so much as asserting an opinion.

Scientific Laws do not equate to or make legal laws.

Scientific laws ABSOLUTELY inform legal laws. Scientists are called to testify in congress ALL the time.

Nope, not until it's physically separated from its gestator.

You don’t get to value one person’s right to choose over another’s right to life. Until you can come up with an argument why birth is the end all be all of personhood, there’s nothing to discuss.

No one is required to gestate either.

There is no choice made by zygotes to become an embryo. They are literally required to gestate by the laws of bio-chemical interactions.

And sometimes, birth control fails. Abortion is an option when an unwanted pregnancy occurs regardless and it's much safer, easier, and cheaper than gestation & birth.

I absolutely, whole heartedly agree. Safe and shameless abortions should be made available to everyone— up to the development of the human brain.

 

[Gordy327]

So it isn’t happening, but if it was then it’d be fine. Just say that you are fine with it, I’m not going to call you a baby murderer or anything.

I have long said in multiple abortion discussions I am fine with abortion at any point and argue against any restrictions, especially as it's none of my business or concern. Neither is it anyone else's business either. I also repeatedly said abortion is between a woman and her doctor.

Humans have other incentives to have sex, but pregnancy and STDs are the factual risks to having sex.

Yes, and abortion is the procedure to end a pregnancy.

Is the only thing you know how to respond with “birth”? You aren’t arguing anything so much as asserting an opinion.

I am asserting a fact. Birth is the point a fetus becomes a recognized legal person.

Scientific laws ABSOLUTELY inform legal laws. Scientists are called to testify in congress ALL the time.

"Inform" does not equate to establish. Testimony may be heard, but that doesn't automatically mean it will be considered or followed.

You don’t get to value one person’s right to choose over another’s right to life. Until you can come up with an argument why birth is the end all be all of personhood, there’s nothing to discuss.

I don't mention "value" at all. What is the "value" of the unborn? Can you quantify this "value?" Birth establishes personhood based on the Constitution and federal law.

There is no choice made by zygotes to become an embryo. They are literally required to gestate by the laws of bio-chemical interactions.

But there is a choice by the woman to continue to gestate the embryo/fetus or not.

I absolutely, whole heartedly agree. Safe and shameless abortions should be made available to everyone— up to the development of the human brain.

"Shameless?" Why should anyone be shamed for an abortion? Whats "shameful" about it? That seems rather emotional. And the brain doesn't fully develop until late in gestation, when elective abortions are not generally sought or performed anyway.

 

[craig]

The churches should be taxed. They use contribution to influence politics.

 

[craig]

In Allah we trust.

 

[BabyAugustine]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I've studied this for years...we need less separation.
To say that what SHOULD be allowed is unconnected to the legality of what is allowed is to argue against Lincoln (Lyceum Address) who said:

" While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it"

 

[Gordy327]

I've studied this for years...we need less separation.

No, we do not. Nothing good can come from less separation. Separation of church and state should be absolute, absolutely .

 

[ColdHardTruth]

That is irrelevant. it's a secular law and applies equally to all regardless of religion and mandates no religious practice

Nope.

Stop spewing bullshit.

It was created based on the religious beliefs of the catholic cabal in accordance with their religious beliefs.

It's inappropriate and needs to go... as to the they.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I've studied this for years...we need less separation.
To say that what SHOULD be allowed is unconnected to the legality of what is allowed is to argue against Lincoln (Lyceum Address) who said:

Ok.

I know it’s unconnected. That’s why I explicitly said argue about how it ought to be morally.

Arguing law is rather pointless as it can be either extremely complicated and impossible to discuss without former education or very simple and clear cut. I like arguing morals because that’s an affirmative argument and you can always push to have the law changed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, we do not. Nothing good can come from less separation.

A lot good can come from that.

Separation of church and state should be absolute, absolutely .

That’s just your religious beliefs and you have no right to impose them on society

 

[Gordy327]

A lot good can come from that.

Not even a little.

That’s just your religious beliefs and you have no right to impose them on society

Pure nonsense. Separation is what the Founding Fathers established and has been affirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Not even a little.

You’re wrong

Pure nonsense. Separation is what the Founding Fathers established

No it’s not

and has been affirmed by the SCOTUS.

Some mistaken rulings which are now being corrected by the current SCOTUS were invented in the 1960s

 

[Gordy327]

You’re wrong

Not even a little.

No it’s not

Yes, it is. Their writings make this abundantly clear.

Some mistaken rulings which are now being corrected by the current SCOTUS were invented in the 1960s

Separation comes from long before the 60s.

 

[Along Came Jones]

 

[BabyAugustine]

People still believed in that stupid carp 250 years ago so it was incorporated.

All religion needs to go and put in the closet.

and of course that is a religiouis view so you defeat your own point. And give me a smile early in the morning.

 

[BabyAugustine]

Not even a little.

Yes, it is. Their writings make this abundantly clear.

Separation comes from long before the 60s.

The writings are now out there in 3 volumes by Judge Boonstra ,8 years work and 2000 pages.
All 118 Founders and you are so wrong that I would change my name and move to a different country.
The Founders wanted religion to SUFFUSE all of society

 

[jmotivator]

Why is this so difficult?

I specifically stated I want to debate what should be, not what our current laws are. You are now the third conservative in a row that has answered by explaining what our current laws allow.

I want your opinion on how separate you personally believe the church/state should be. I don't care if SCOTUS allows school prayer or not. I want to know if YOU think school prayer should be allowed. Understand the difference?

If your rights are not granted by a higher power than the government then you have no rights. There is no recourse when the Government decides to take away your rights.

All of the great advancements in liberty throughout human history are predicated on the understanding that rights supersede government.

When you remove that higher power/God from the equation you remove all justification for your perceived rights.

 

[jmotivator]

People still believed in that stupid carp 250 years ago so it was incorporated.

All religion needs to go and put in the closet.

Find me a country that was better for it's lack of religion.... I'll wait.

 

[jmotivator]

Actually, referencing a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God is establishing a religion if you are requiring everyone to participate. Such as the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. By making that a government mandate they have established a government religion. The phrase "In God We Trust," however, is not establishing a government religion since it is not mandated by government that everyone must recite that phrase. The phrase "In God We Trust" should not exist in the first place, but it is better than the mandated "under God" in the Pledge which is blatantly unconstitutional.

Who is requiring that you participate?

 

[Gordy327]

The writings are now out there in 3 volumes by Judge Boonstra ,8 years work and 2000 pages.
All 118 Founders and you are so wrong that I would change my name and move to a different country.

Wow, that's hilarious if you think you know more about the FF than the FF themselves.

The Founders wanted religion to SUFFUSE all of society

Demonstrably false!