'Abortion' and religious strawmen

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JBeukema, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Oft we here the language of the abortion debate played out in the language of religion. The religious right rails against the destruction of a human sole, ultimately falling back- near always- on their religion for the moral grounds for their objections. The anti-lifers, in turn, respond in kind. They rail against the legislation of religion and accuse others of forcing their god upon the county. However, there is another group that has entered the scene that, while smaller than the others, poses a huge danger to both of the aforementioned. These are those pro-life atheists and other non-religious persons who object to the slaughter of the unborn. Why is this group so dangerous?


    To the anti-lifers, these persons undermine the very straw man that they rely upon for the crux of their arguments. Any attempt to paint their opposition the usually colors of religious fanaticism simply will not work and this new opposition is more likely than the old to understand the biological sciences to rip to shreds their little catch phrases about the child being 'not alive' and a part of 'her body'.


    Why, then, does not more of the Right embrace these allies? The reason is simple. To admit that someone can have a moral objection to abortion- or any other issue- without being religious undermined their long-held position that America needs their god in order to 'live right'. Indeed, if morality is acknowledged as existing outside of religion, then the question is raised of why we need religion at all. The cries that 'the godless' are destroying America, undermining our principles, and going after your children are shown to be the hollow screams of the ignorant and frightened. Ultimately, it is a fear of the unknown and of the loss of power and influence.


    -and so, each side seeks to ignore this growing number of persons, and the battle continues to take place on the grounds of 'religious infringement' versus 'personal rights'. I fear that so long as this remains the case, our only probable options re either an inability to protect the unborn or undue and dangerous influence of religious principles upon legislation and the State.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Huge flaw, the abortion issue isn't fully religious and never was. Other big flaw, there different aspects to consider just just "yes or no".
     
  3. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    you think people think you need to be religious ..to not want to kill baby's ?....you could be right..I think the media likes to focus on the extremes
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  4. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    It largely is, and the abortion industry loves to paint it as such. As Eots says


    -and most Americans only 'know' what the MSM tells them
     
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,318
    Thanks Received:
    12,691
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,751
    "anti-lifer" is a strawman. Not worth reading the rest of your silly rant.
     
  6. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    well reducing the objection to bringing a baby through the birth canal and sucking its brains out...as being anti-choice or anti-woman is a bit of a strawman don't you think ?
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    'anti-lifer' isn't a strawman, you twit. Learn what the term means before you try to use it.
     
  8. Anguille
    Offline

    Anguille Bane of the Urbane

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    17,910
    Thanks Received:
    2,122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,137
    Anti-choicers are anti-lifers.
    Pro choice is pro life.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    I dont think the pro-abortion/pro-life debate is a religious issue. I think its a purely political one. I do think life is sacred. But I would believe that irregardless of my religion merely because I appreciate how fragile and precious any life is, human or otherwise.

    In fact, I think those that try to make it solely a religious issue are doing so because they think they can somehow discredit their opponents by citing religion.

    I also dont think it matters why you support a position, whether for religious reasons or secular, you have a right to have your say in society. And if you can convince enough of the rest of society to accept your position I dont think its forcing your religion on society. It's just the republican/democratic process at work.

    It's impossible to force your religion on others. Because no one has the power to take away someone elses agency or personal beliefs. Ideas cant be regulated and the government shouldnt even try to regulate them. Behaviors can and should be regulated where appropriate. And how do we decide what's appropriate or not? Through elections and campaigning.
     
  10. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,318
    Thanks Received:
    12,691
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,751
    Once again Jbuttemia shows what a dolt he is.
     

Share This Page