Freedom of religion

[Atreus21]

Whoop-de-do.

....so stop acting as if opposition to abortion is necessarily religiously-informed.

It's interesting that you used the word "generally". It's also interesting that I didn't use the word "generally". Yet somehow I guess you don't agree with my general opinion.

Do you think doing something against a child's will is justification for removing him or her from the parents' care?

 

[Atreus21]

And yet it's fine to start firing drones and dropping bombs on foreigners despite knowing it's an absolute certainty that some innocent human beings will die as a result?

(And don't start playing semantic games with the word 'deliberate')

Of course it's not fine. Anyone who goes to war to deliberately kill innocents is guilty of a war crime.

It's what always strikes me about the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland. Where parties with paramilitary wings and a history of violence all agree that abortion is worng.

Blow up a toddler in the course of making a political point? Unfortunate but unavoidable in the course of achieving a legitimate political aim. Abort a foetus to save the mother's mental health? Never justifiable, ever.

If only abortion could be carried out with semtex and a telephoned warning to the foetus, eh?

The maintenance of mental health shouldn't merit a death sentence for someone else.

 

[Atreus21]

except I don't view it through your rose colored glasses.

Also known as the glasses that scientists use.

an embryo is not human...

"“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014).

...can not exist outside the body without advanced medical technics...

In the first place, that's irrelevant - the value of human lives is not conditional. I could just as arbitrarily claim that blacks are only human beings if they live in Harlem. Secondly, if we accept this standard, is that to say you'd oppose abortion past 24 weeks, so far the earliest date that a child has survived outside the womb?

can abort spontaneously(miscarriage)

People die spontaneously all the time.

...and has no rights that supersedes those of the woman.

I'm sure slaveholders thought the same of their slaves.

 

[mikeymikec]

....so stop acting as if opposition to abortion is necessarily religiously-informed.

I said no such thing.

Do you think doing something against a child's will is justification for removing him or her from the parents' care?

Are you asking me this question because you didn't understand the point I was making that you're responding to here? I thought I was quite clear and specific. I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

 

[soundforbjt]

The only problem I have with religion is with many of it's followers.

 

[pmv]

Of course it's not fine. Anyone who goes to war to deliberately kill innocents is guilty of a war crime.

But I said don't play semantic games with the word 'deliberate'. And yet that's just what you did. Going to war means the death of innocents. The invasion of Iraq certainly did. It's entirely predictable, so the use of the word 'deliberately' there is a bit of an evasion.

 

[pmv]

While I know this does happen in the scientific communities sometimes, the difference is that a substantial counter-argument to counter the current accepted wisdom goes somewhat further than it does in religious communities. The number of points that the Catholic church has conceded in terms of what it considers to be accepted wisdom in the last 2000 years can probably be counted on two hands, whereas among scientists it has happened beyond count. We'd still be discussing the Four Humors and other such bollocks as if they had scientific merit if it wasn't the case, whereas the requirement of a woman proving that she is a virgin is still in the Bible. Imagine finding the scientific equivalent of that in a 'current' science textbook (aside from "teaching the controversy")!

I agree to an extent. In some disciplines, however, the only counter-arguments seem to come from rival 'schools' with the same general underpinnings but a different preference regarding the details - akin to arguments between Catholics and Protestants or Sunni and Shia over theology. Science in general is _young_, and some fields seem to make unwarrented assumptions about how much they know...not relative to what others know, but relative to what there potentially is to be known and what will one day be known. And that's befoer getting on to non-scientific 'professions' like road-traffic-engineers and financial analysts!

I'm just personally a bit jaded about some professions and fields-of-alleged-expertise in particular. Seems to me they are all subject to the same forces that historically, have moulded various priest-castes. They have multiple vested-interests in over-estimating how much 'added value' their expertise actually brings.

 

[Paratus]

"“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014).

People die spontaneously all the time.

Except in this case when you decided to have kids you were the one that put the half loaded revolver to thier heads and pulled the trigger.

And contrary to your mistaken belief children - born children rarely die spontaneously die.

I'm sure slaveholders thought the same of their slaves.

Indeed

 

[Atreus21]

I said no such thing.

Really. So when you said this:

"...a religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their religious whims, and that others must conform to their beliefs.

The initial examples that I felt my view applied to perfectly well was say that religion X insists that abortion should be illegal for all, or that religion Y insists that women must cover up.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept of freedom of religion provided that the religious believer wishes to adhere to certain principles in how they live their own life, so I'm perfectly happy with say a Christian female deciding that they will never have an abortion, or say a follower of Islam choosing to wear clothing that their religion says is proper for a woman, but I feel the line is being crossed for example if a Christian tells a female that they cannot have an abortion because that offends the Christian's beliefs, or say a follower of Islam tells another follower of Islam (or anyone else for that matter) that they must dress in accordance with Islamic principles in all aspects of their life.

IMO for such principles to be in a society's rule of law, it's got to scale elegantly as well, and that's when I think things get tricky for my opinion to be scaled. For example, followers of a religion lobbying/campaigning hard for abortion to be illegal *is* foisting their religious views on those who don't follow their religion."

You don't think you were portraying abortion as if only Christians object to it? As if trying to outlaw the practice is just religious imposition?

Are you asking me this question because you didn't understand the point I was making that you're responding to here? I thought I was quite clear and specific. I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

It's strange having to quote your own words back to you twice, but you said:

"Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others."

Many, many tasks in parenting call to do things against the will of their children. Vaccinations for example. Would it be permissible for me to divorce children from their parents on the grounds that the parents were trying to forcibly disabuse their children of belief in God?

 

[Atreus21]

But I said don't play semantic games with the word 'deliberate'. And yet that's just what you did. Going to war means the death of innocents. The invasion of Iraq certainly did. It's entirely predictable, so the use of the word 'deliberately' there is a bit of an evasion.

You don't draw any distinction between deliberately killing innocents and accidentally killing innocents?

I mean if you don't, then you're essentially tossing out the entire concept of responsibility.

 

[Atreus21]

Except in this case when you decided to have kids you were the one that put the half loaded revolver to thier heads and pulled the trigger.

I guess, in the sense that having life involves the inevitability of death by any one of myriad means. Likening that to giving them a loaded gun is pretty ridiculous.

The fact that people die of natural or accidental causes doesn't free us to bring it about deliberately. We might just as well justify any murder on that basis.

 

[Paratus]

I guess, in the sense that having life involves the inevitability of death by any one of myriad means. Likening that to giving them a loaded gun is pretty ridiculous.

The fact that people die of natural or accidental causes doesn't free us to bring it about deliberately. We might just as well justify any murder on that basis.

Your argument rings hollow to me.

People do die of natural and other causes approaching 100% (not everyone has died yet so it’s not 100%)

Kids however don’t. In the US they have the following chances to die:

• 0-1 years old 0.58%
• 1-4 years old 0.025%
• 5-15 years old 0.013%

Even the worst country has an infant mortality rate over the 1st year of 6%.

Trying to conceive under your definition of life and death however is a 30-70% chance of death depending on the age of the parents when trying to conceive.

Taking the abortion drug RU486 runs 91-98% chance depending on the week after conceiving it’s taken.

So your argument is making a choice that has a 90% chance to result in the death of an innocent child is immoral but making a choice with a 70% chance of death is moral because:

• Everybody dies so that’s no reason not to do what you want (even though born kids actually have 100 times less chance of dying)
• You don’t want that to happen so you aren’t responsible if it does. (Even though it’s a directly foreseeable outcome from your decision)

Maybe you think it’s ok because God told you be fruitful and multiply. So any spontaneous abortion doesn’t really count as a dead kid. But did it ever occur to you that maybe it doesn’t count that early in pregnancy because it really isn’t a person yet?

 

[Paratus]

Of course it's not fine. Anyone who goes to war to deliberately kill innocents is guilty of a war crime.



The maintenance of mental health shouldn't merit a death sentence for someone else.

Do you even understand what is being talked about when they talk about maternal mental health?

Instead of whatever facile story you tell yourself about sluts pretending to be depressed to get an abortion why don’t you picture this instead.

You and your wife find out at 30 weeks that your very much wanted baby is showing signs of a congenital defect that is not compatible with life. Your baby will be born and then will spend a few hours gasping for air and eventually dying in pain. Heroic medical measures might extend that pain to a few days.

Now since third trimester abortions are very difficult to get your choice is basically made for you and your wife. It is to watch the baby you were so excited for be born and die horribly.

Would that have any mental trauma for you? Do you think it might for your wife? If that wouldn’t hurt somebody emotionally do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with that person.

Now your other option is spend $10K+ and fly to one of the few clinics that will do a third trimester abortion. Instead of hours or days of pain, an injection is given which stops the babies heart in minutes and your wife would then be induced to give a still birth.

Both options are the result of an awful situation but why is the allow the baby to die in prolonged agony the moral choice while the other is immoral?

 

[Moonbeam]

There are an endless number of only religions and if we were to truly govern ourselves by any one of them, only one person, the one true believer, who would also be the most able to kill everybody else, would be left standing. By creating a constitutional government that permits both doubt and belief and separates the secular from the religious, a society has a better chance of surviving. Naturally all those folk who know the absolute truth, like killing the unborn is evil, will always try to upend the cart that makes it possible for the state to function. As one of our forefathers more or less said, we give you a democratic republic, it's up to you whether you can preserve it.

Humans are capable of two polar opposite evils, in my opinion. They can become fanatics, absolutely certain that what they have been inculcated to believe is the good actually is the good or they can believe that good is merely relative. Few seem to come to the realization that the good is only when the ego isn't.

The central realization of the enlightenment, in my opinion, is that the individual has an intrinsic value based on the fact that within us is a spark of the divine. The enlightenment happened because at a stage in Western development, numerous people because conscious of that spark within themselves.

Our culture is at a stage of regression because the number of people experiencing that realization, having that awakening experience, becoming enlightened themselves, is declining as a result of cultural drift. The fanatics and the relativist have filled the cultural stage. Darkness is attempting to settling back in.

The truth is within us , unseen as is the Kingdom of Heaven. There is nowhere to go, nothing to become, but to see, to experience this inner realization. To awaken is to experience self fulfillment. The Alpha and the Omega has no need of anything. To ride the river of time is to stop time and to be. To be is to love and to love is to be without fear. As one wise man said, "Relax and be happy!"

Imagine the violence and hatred of the fanatical mind that can tell a ten year old girl who was raped by her father she will burn in hell if she has an abortion. How disgusting the disgusted become.

 

[mikeymikec]

You don't think you were portraying abortion as if only Christians object to it? As if trying to outlaw the practice is just religious imposition?

No. You're projecting your doubt as if it constitutes a substantial argument. By all means continue to doubt if it pleases you.

It's strange having to quote your own words back to you twice, but you said:

"Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others."

Many, many tasks in parenting call to do things against the will of their children. Vaccinations for example. Would it be permissible for me to divorce children from their parents on the grounds that the parents were trying to forcibly disabuse their children of belief in God?

Why don't you just argue the point I actually made rather than try to talk about something else? Do we need to argue every single scenario in which parents do things against the will of their children and which we agree and disagree with before you'll get back to the actual freaking topic? Whether either of us would advocate the idea of taking children away from anti-vaxxer parents makes no difference to the actual topic, just like if we were both for removing children from their rapey parents, or if we're both against removing children from parents who don't wish to give them ice cream every time they ask. It makes no difference to the actual topic.

 

[dawp]

Also known as the glasses that scientists use.



"“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014).



In the first place, that's irrelevant - the value of human lives is not conditional. I could just as arbitrarily claim that blacks are only human beings if they live in Harlem. Secondly, if we accept this standard, is that to say you'd oppose abortion past 24 weeks, so far the earliest date that a child has survived outside the womb?



People die spontaneously all the time.



I'm sure slaveholders thought the same of their slaves.

the only difference between us and lower animals is our intelligence and an unsupported belief in god.

the value of human life is completely conditional, it is whatever society decides it is. if society decides the rich, or white, or a particular religion is more valued there isn't much that will change that except society itself.

belief in god is not proof of god.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm not sure if this specifically addresses the OP's concerns, however I think it's somewhat related.

There's this one particular item that intertwines itself with religion and the rights we are afforded by law: Morality.

Our morals have this unique ability to evolve and our laws have evolved right along with them, whereas most any well established religion does not evolve the way our morals do, or if they do, it is with the utmost difficulty that requires a top down soul searching exercise in reinterpreting some scripture authored thousands of years ago.

It is here where I see conflicts occur in how we identify ourselves as a society, as a nation. Yet imho this conflict is a good thing because it's right there that we find ways to somehow live with each other, to remain united as a nation so that we may exercise those rights we afford ourselves, rights that in fact bind us together for mutual security and prosperity.

Our Constitution and BOR gives us this ability, although in some ironic sense, it also give some folks the ability to challenge its very underpinnings in order to accomplish some personal or organizational agenda, ie - challenging the separation of church and state, the ability to create an oligarchy via corruption, etc.

However, we as a nation can openly discuss how best to grapple with the strict tenets of organized religion and how best to accommodate the requirements it demands from its followers even as our morals evolve with the passing of time, unlike certain other dictatorships that do not allow the free expression of thought that would, in their leadership's minds threaten their existing theocratic form of governments.

Much more to say on this, but it would inevitably lead to digression.

 

[mikeymikec]

@tweaker2

Reading your post made me think of an extra point against legislating to stop religious fundamentalism from affecting a country's politics: The effect of a law is not just in the words of what the law is designed to do but how it is interpreted by both the authorities and the public. Religious people with rational and substantive arguments (that are not just the parroting of religious texts and/or an appeal to higher authority and/or an appeal to that religions followers) would likely be dissuaded from getting involved in shaping a civilisation for fear of being branded as a religious figurehead. Furthermore, such people might actually want to help undo the work of religious fundamentalism (because they understand that the nature of their beliefs are not reliable as facts and should not be treated as such by society) and have a better understanding of its underpinnings due to their life experience.

 

[Atreus21]

Your argument rings hollow to me.

People do die of natural and other causes approaching 100% (not everyone has died yet so it’s not 100%)

Kids however don’t. In the US they have the following chances to die:

• 0-1 years old 0.58%
• 1-4 years old 0.025%
• 5-15 years old 0.013%

Even the worst country has an infant mortality rate over the 1st year of 6%.

Trying to conceive under your definition of life and death however is a 30-70% chance of death depending on the age of the parents when trying to conceive.

Taking the abortion drug RU486 runs 91-98% chance depending on the week after conceiving it’s taken.

So your argument is making a choice that has a 90% chance to result in the death of an innocent child is immoral but making a choice with a 70% chance of death is moral because:

• Everybody dies so that’s no reason not to do what you want (even though born kids actually have 100 times less chance of dying)
• You don’t want that to happen so you aren’t responsible if it does. (Even though it’s a directly foreseeable outcome from your decision)

Maybe you think it’s ok because God told you be fruitful and multiply. So any spontaneous abortion doesn’t really count as a dead kid. But did it ever occur to you that maybe it doesn’t count that early in pregnancy because it really isn’t a person yet?

Again, being alive involves the inevitability of death. At various stages of life people are at higher risk of natural death than others. They aren't more or less human depending on where they are on the risk curve.

 

[Atreus21]

Do you even understand what is being talked about when they talk about maternal mental health?

Instead of whatever facile story you tell yourself about sluts pretending to be depressed to get an abortion why don’t you picture this instead.

You and your wife find out at 30 weeks that your very much wanted baby is showing signs of a congenital defect that is not compatible with life. Your baby will be born and then will spend a few hours gasping for air and eventually dying in pain. Heroic medical measures might extend that pain to a few days.

Now since third trimester abortions are very difficult to get your choice is basically made for you and your wife. It is to watch the baby you were so excited for be born and die horribly.

Would that have any mental trauma for you? Do you think it might for your wife? If that wouldn’t hurt somebody emotionally do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with that person.

Now your other option is spend $10K+ and fly to one of the few clinics that will do a third trimester abortion. Instead of hours or days of pain, an injection is given which stops the babies heart in minutes and your wife would then be induced to give a still birth.

Both options are the result of an awful situation but why is the allow the baby to die in prolonged agony the moral choice while the other is immoral?

First, selling an isolated worst-case scenario doesn't change anything about the fact that late-term abortions are almost never done for reasons of fetal anomaly or deformity. Guttmacher's own study found that women having such abortions cited the same reasons as those in earlier-term abortions: raising children alone, depression or drug use, conflict with a male partner or domestic violence, etc. People cite this claim as if it's axiomatic but it simply has no factual basis.

Second, to give an honest answer to your question: I'll concede that in this scenario I would proceed with the birth, strictly because of my orientation to God - I have no right to usurp his sole authority in determining a natural death. I've no right to predict the future. Furthermore, I wouldn't condemn non-Christians who elected abortion under those circumstances.

Third, having answered your question, I'd like to know if you'd support a women aborting a perfectly healthy and viable 39 week old fetus.

 

[Atreus21]

No. You're projecting your doubt as if it constitutes a substantial argument. By all means continue to doubt if it pleases you.

Why don't you just argue the point I actually made rather than try to talk about something else? Do we need to argue every single scenario in which parents do things against the will of their children and which we agree and disagree with before you'll get back to the actual freaking topic? Whether either of us would advocate the idea of taking children away from anti-vaxxer parents makes no difference to the actual topic, just like if we were both for removing children from their rapey parents, or if we're both against removing children from parents who don't wish to give them ice cream every time they ask. It makes no difference to the actual topic.

You would support the government taking children away from their parents if the parents are training their children in their religion, correct?

 

[Atreus21]

the only difference between us and lower animals is our intelligence and an unsupported belief in god.

the value of human life is completely conditional, it is whatever society decides it is. if society decides the rich, or white, or a particular religion is more valued there isn't much that will change that except society itself.

belief in god is not proof of god.

So, when society determined that blacks were sub-human, or the Nazis decided that non-Aryans were subhuman, they were speaking the truth?

 

[Paratus]

Again, being alive involves the inevitability of death. At various stages of life people are at higher risk of natural death than others. They aren't more or less human depending on where they are on the risk curve.

And again, as a parent, I would never put child in a situation where their risk of death was no better than a coin toss. We put parents in jail who pull shit like that.

 

[mikeymikec]

You would support the government taking children away from their parents if the parents are training their children in their religion, correct?

I did not say this either. Come on dude, I'm sure you're better at reading comprehension than this.

 

[Paratus]

First, selling an isolated worst-case scenario doesn't change anything about the fact that late-term abortions are almost never done for reasons of fetal anomaly or deformity. Guttmacher's own study found that women having such abortions cited the same reasons as those in earlier-term abortions: raising children alone, depression or drug use, conflict with a male partner or domestic violence, etc. People cite this claim as if it's axiomatic but it simply has no factual basis.

Your link takes a decidedly anti abortion slant to the Guttmacher study. It doesn’t actually break down the number of abortions done in the third trimester which does not start at 20 weeks as that study does.

The best numbers I could find are from a doctor trained in late term abortions who interpretred CDC data:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/drjeng...re-really-performed-in-the-united-states/amp/

She found from 2012 data:

• 1186 abortions after 21 weeks
• aproximatley 600 after 24 weeks
• most of the 600 were due to fetal deformities with a few being for incestual rape of a minor

There’s no factual basis to assume the majority of third trimester abortions are for any thing but tragic medical or criminal circumstances.

Second, to give an honest answer to your question: I'll concede that in this scenario I would proceed with the birth, strictly because of my orientation to God - I have no right to usurp his sole authority in determining a natural death. I've no right to predict the future. Furthermore, I wouldn't condemn non-Christians who elected abortion under those circumstances.

Glad to hear you wouldn’t condemn them.

However for most of the country and people of modest means the decision has already been made for them if they find themselves with a lethal fetal deformity due to the politicians prolifers elect.

I do feel that allowing your child to suffer in these specific circumstances when you have the power to prevent it is an abrogation of your parental responsibility.

[quote[
Third, having answered your question, I'd like to know if you'd support a women aborting a perfectly healthy and viable 39 week old fetus.[/QUOTE]

Of course not. The tension here is between the woman’s freedom vs the life of the child. A healthy fetus after 35 weeks can be born no problem.

So an “abortion” at 39 weeks is just giving birth via induction or surgically and adoption.