You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41]

[Kal'Stang]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

I was thinking of how unfair it is to frame the abortion debate as choice verses life. Making abortion illegal doesn't take away the woman's choice to abort, only to do it safely. And, punishing women for making the choice to abort does not guarantee fetal life. So, the real debate is doctor verses hangar or dogma verses truth, but not life verses choice. That way of framing the argument is loaded with false rhetoric.

I'm almost at the point where I feel that any legislation that is supported overwhelmingly and almost exclusively by the faithful should be automatically rejected on the grounds that it becomes a de facto religious act and violates the first amendment and should not be relegated to the judicial branch to decide. I've heard from many people that, if a majority desire something, even a violation of the minority's right to free conscience, that it should be accepted as a proper result of the democratic process. I would argue, however, that democracy can only function when information is available and rational. When the facts of the debate are really not facts at all but just the subjective desires or fears of traditionalists, they pervert and corrupt democracy with a pretense of deliberation that is, actually, just blind adherence. Women, especially in a democracy, deserve better than to have their lives be forfeit to the changing tides of popular dogma.

So, if you're "pro-life", what you really are is pro-hangar, as that is the actual alternative to legal abortion that has been demonstrated well by history and, besides, life is not yours to defend when it's trapped in another's abdomen. And, if you're "pro-choice", you needn't be pro-abortion at all. You merely have to recognize that women have always had the choice NOT to give birth and, as such, realize that the law is powerless to do anything but make criminals of desperate women.

So, let's dispense with the juvenile redefining of the issue. Obviously, these false acts of religion are doing nothing to make the issues clear.

Biggest problem with your argument is that you are assuming that everyone that is against abortion is against it due to religious reasons. I know many people, and have seen many posters that do not argue against abortion on religious grounds, but instead on a scientific basis that has nothing to do with religion what so ever.

The reason that abortion is so hotly contested is because BOTH sides have valid points.

And when people talk about taking away a woman's choice to get an abortion they are talking about the legal aspect of it. Naturally everyone has a choice in everything that they do and that cannot be taken away. A murderer makes the choice to kill someone, the law removes the choice from being a legal one.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

What the heck are you talking about? Upwards of 80% of the pro-life crowd is religious...

and that other 20%?... what religion do they adhere to?

Pro-choicers are also more educated and earn far more than pro-lifers...

irrelevant to everything but your own ego.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Said the man who couldn't rationally refute the implication and had to resort to a juvenile, uncomfortable laughter strategy.

laughter is all your false argument deserves.

There's many kinds of dogmas and the one that maintains that fetuses are rights-endowed are among them. However, my point stands that without the sky man worshipers, the pro-life crowd would be statistically nil. Look around the world where abortion is legal. It's not supported on religious grounds anywhere. Yet, where it is not legal, the religious are in charge. It's too obvious to deny.

so which is it.. is hte pro-life position predicated on a religion or religious belief, or not?

arguing the predominate numbers of adherents to the pro-life position does not answer the question of whether the pro-life position is predicated on religion/religious belief.

at the very least, you owe atheist and secular pro-lifers an explanation....you need to explain to them what religion they are basing their position on.

Yes, I'm sure a whole paragraph is too much for the average pro-hangar zealot. Just skip over the big words, if they're slowing you down.

you haven't utilized any big words to slow anyone down... it's your utter lack of contemplation that's an issue , not your vocabulary.... you simply don't think about your arguments as much as you should.

aw for me being a "pro-hangar zealot"... this is just another example of you typing before thinking the argument through.... it's the equivalent of a 5 year old calling me a poopyhead, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

and that other 20%?... what religion do they adhere to?

The Gallup Poll shows that 19% are atheist, if I remember correctly...

irrelevant to everything but your own ego.

Wrong. Those are the facts according to the Gallup Poll. Did you not read it?

 

[Henrin]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Actually the UN has declared that access to abortion is a Human right.

They gave 5 very solid reasons why women should have access to legal abortions

They punished a country for denying a citizen access to an abortion.



Read more:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1392...red-abortion-a-human-right-here-are-5-reasons

And if they punish the US for anything I'm all for the US cutting the funding of that ridiculous organization.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

The Gallup Poll shows that 19% are atheist, if I remember correctly...

if 20% are atheist, how on earth can the pro-life position be predicated on religion/religious belief?

Wrong. Those are the facts according to the Gallup Poll. Did you not read it?

explain why these polls numbers are relevant to the discussion....be specific.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Biggest problem with your argument is that you are assuming that everyone that is against abortion is against it due to religious reasons. I know many people, and have seen many posters that do not argue against abortion on religious grounds, but instead on a scientific basis that has nothing to do with religion what so ever.

The reason that abortion is so hotly contested is because BOTH sides have valid points.

And when people talk about taking away a woman's choice to get an abortion they are talking about the legal aspect of it. Naturally everyone has a choice in everything that they do and that cannot be taken away. A murderer makes the choice to kill someone, the law removes the choice from being a legal one.

exactly...

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

if 20% are atheist, how on earth can the pro-life position be predicated on religion/religious belief?


explain why these polls numbers are relevant to the discussion....be specific.

Obviously the VAST MAJORITY are religious... that was the point. If 80% are religious then it can be predicated that the majority do it for religious reasons...

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Obviously the VAST MAJORITY are religious... that was the point. If 80% are religious then it can be predicated that the majority do it for religious reasons...

so the other 20% don't warrant universal condemnation, because their views are not based on some unspecified religious belief.... ok, noted.
at least you are willing to admit that the pro-life position is not predicated on religion, though.. and indeed non-religious reason exist for that position.. props for that.

which bring me to my next question..... what specific, exclusively religious, belief is the pro-life position predicated on, in the case of religious people?
while answering, keep in mind that none of hte major holy books ( Bible, Koran, Torah) touches on the subject of abortion.
.

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

so the other 20% don't warrant universal condemnation, because their views are not based on some unspecified religious belief.... ok, noted.
at least you are willing to admit that the pro-life position is not predicated on religion, though.. and indeed non-religious reason exist for that position.. props for that.

which bring me to my next question..... what specific, exclusively religious, belief is the pro-life position predicated on, in the case of religious people?
while answering, keep in mind that none of hte major holy books ( Bible, Koran, Torah) touches on the subject of abortion.
.

I always assumed that it was based on the idea of the soul. The soul enters the body at conception so aborting the soul/life is a sin.

 

[minnie616]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

so the other 20% don't warrant universal condemnation, because their views are not based on some unspecified religious belief.... ok, noted.
at least you are willing to admit that the pro-life position is not predicated on religion, though.. and indeed non-religious reason exist for that position.. props for that.

which bring me to my next question..... what specific, exclusively religious, belief is the pro-life position predicated on, in the case of religious people?
while answering, keep in mind that none of hte major holy books ( Bible, Koran, Torah) touches on the subject of abortion.
.

Keep in mind it was the Catholic Church that vowed to overturn Roe v Wade in 1973 because they believe that at moment a human egg is fertleized by the sperm ensoulment happens.

1973 | Mainline Protestant and Jewish leaders meet at the United Methodist Building in Washington, DC, to discuss the Roman Catholic Church’s pledge to overturn the new U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. This meeting, called by the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, leads to the formation of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR).

History | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

I always assumed that it was based on the idea of the soul. The soul enters the body at conception so aborting the soul/life is a sin.

nah... it's entirely based on the tenant that it's immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

but the thing is, that's not an exclusive religious belief whatsoever..... sure, it's codified in every holy book and probably every religion... but it's nearly universally adhered to , even by the non-religious.

 

[minnie616]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

nah... it's entirely based on the tenant that it's immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

but the thing is, that's not an exclusive religious belief whatsoever..... sure, it's codified in every holy book and probably every religion... but it's nearly universally adhered to , even by the non-religious.

Not all religions believe ensoulment happens at conception.
Many mainline Protestant Churches belive ensoulment happens at birth or later in the pregnancy.
Even the Envangists use to think before the 1980s that ensoulment happen at birth.

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life [ensoulment]begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Keep in mind it was the Catholic Church that vowed to overturn Roe v Wade in 1973 because they believe that at moment a human egg is fertleized by the sperm ensoulment happens.

yes, life begins at conception ( ensoulment).... this is one of those times when religion and science are in agreement.

History | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

sure, lots of religious people are pro-choice... excuse me, I meant to say " sky man worshipers", in the language of your people.
they utilized "free will" as their biblical unpinning, which is also a valid argument...and one i tend to utilize to base my rationale for keeping government out of the business of regulating moral decisions such as abortion.

the religious problem only strikes when a religious person has an abortion ( that doesn't threaten the life of hte mother)... it's at that point when the religious person must, indeed, ignore the that it's immoral to intentionally kill and innocent life.
( which underpins my personal belief that abortions are bad)

so yeah, for the religious person, i see no real conflict in being legally and politically pro-choice.... the conflict only arises when the religious person actually has an abortion, despite their religious teaching on life. ( that's a conflict that's between them and their God, imo)

 

[Thrilla]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Not all religions believe ensoulment happens at conception.
Many mainline Protestant Churches belive ensoulment happens at birth or later in the pregnancy.
Even the Envangists use to think before the 1980s that ensoulment happen at birth.



My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

yes, there's lots of different opinions on when the soul enters the body.....

as for his interpretation of exodus, it's very very weird..strikingly wierd

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,…

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

nah... it's entirely based on the tenant that it's immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

but the thing is, that's not an exclusive religious belief whatsoever..... sure, it's codified in every holy book and probably every religion... but it's nearly universally adhered to , even by the non-religious.

Most non-religious people do not buy into that at all...

the innocent human being as it is has no value at the earliest stages unless the mother holds it as valued...

 

[Henrin]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Most non-religious people do not buy into that at all...

the innocent human being as it is has no value at the earliest stages unless the mother holds it as valued...

That has to be the dumbest view on any topic I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The idea that human life only has value at certain stages is just stupid.

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

That has to be the dumbest view on any topic I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The idea that human life only has value at certain stages is just stupid.

You are welcome to that subjective idea and I will stick to mu objective idea that the life has little meaning to me...

 

[Bodi]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

That has to be the dumbest view on any topic I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The idea that human life only has value at certain stages is just stupid.

I ahve 120 or so more posts in 4 fewer years than you... just noticed.

 

[minnie616]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

yes, life begins at conception ( ensoulment).... this is one of those times when religion and science are in agreement.


sure, lots of religious people are pro-choice... excuse me, I meant to say " sky man worshipers", in the language of your people.
they utilized "free will" as their biblical unpinning, which is also a valid argument...and one i tend to utilize to base my rationale for keeping government out of the business of regulating moral decisions such as abortion.

the religious problem only strikes when a religious person has an abortion ( that doesn't threaten the life of hte mother)... it's at that point when the religious person must, indeed, ignore the that it's immoral to intentionally kill and innocent life.
( which underpins my personal belief that abortions are bad)

so yeah, for the religious person, i see no real conflict in being legally and politically pro-choice.... the conflict only arises when the religious person actually has an abortion, despite their religious teaching on life. ( that's a conflict that's between them and their God, imo)

There is no conflict for pro choice religions.

It is a matter rather of Religious Liberty.

RCRC believes that real religious liberty protects the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family, and her own faith. Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.

Religious Liberty | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

That's true, there are only some minds out there which know what words mean.

You're not one of them.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

You're not one of them.

My, what a blatant violation of your own thread warning.

 

[prometeus]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

...that do not argue against abortion on religious grounds, but instead on a scientific basis

What would that basis be?

The reason that abortion is so hotly contested is because BOTH sides have valid points.

Valid, perhaps, but compelling?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

What would that basis be?

Human DNA which makes it human and it is a living organism with distinct DNA separate from the mothers. Biology 101. Note: What I just stated was vastly simplified as I have no reason to go into it.

Valid, perhaps, but compelling?

To one side yes. To the other side, no. What is and isn't "compelling" is subjective.

 

[prometeus]

Re: You can't take away choice, you can just change which ones are available to [W:41

Human DNA which makes it human and it is a living organism with distinct DNA separate from the mothers. Biology 101.

Yes and cows have bovine DNA so we should not eat hamburgers. Common sense 101. How is either a scientific argument for anything?

Note: What I just stated was vastly simplified as I have no reason to go into it.

You asserted that there was some scientific argument against abortion. Giving a real example would be a good reason, but I will save you the trouble, there isn't one, as abortion is not a scientific issue, but only a legal and or moral one.

To one side yes. To the other side, no. What is and isn't "compelling" is subjective.

To some degree, but certainly not when it comes to making public policy or law.