'Abortion' and religious strawmen

[JBeukema]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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".

 

[eots]

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

 

[JBeukema]

Huge flaw, the abortion issue isn't fully religious and never was.

It largely is, and the abortion industry loves to paint it as such. As Eots says

the media likes to focus on the extremes

-and most Americans only 'know' what the MSM tells them

 

[Ravi]

"anti-lifer" is a strawman. Not worth reading the rest of your silly rant.

 

[eots]

"anti-lifer" is a strawman. Not worth reading the rest of your silly rant.

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 ?

 

[JBeukema]

'anti-lifer' isn't a strawman, you twit. Learn what the term means before you try to use it.

 

[Anguille]

"anti-lifer" is a strawman. Not worth reading the rest of your silly rant.

Anti-choicers are anti-lifers.
Pro choice is pro life.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[Ravi]

Once again Jbuttemia shows what a dolt he is.

 

[Ralph]

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.

Could it be the very reason RELIGION is introduced into the argument is simply because the AMERICAN SYSTEM of jurisprudence was referenced very strongly from the "Blackstone theory of Law" that was used to establish legal precedent in the construction of this nation and and its rule of law? When Blackstone is used to establish precedent, as it was used well into the 20th century....before a mandate from the liberal northeastern legal institutions such as Yale, and Harvard bought into the extremes of Darwinian Cultism and began instructing their students to consider the use of prior OPINION from sitting judges to determine precedence instead of Blackstone's commentaries on the Law (when such is done, the LAW becomes very SUBJECTIVE to personal opinion and personal ideology, instead of the ACTUAL TEXT of established law, as such oftentimes the wicked is rewarded and the just is punished, and inversion of true BLIND JUSTICE)........while Blackstone clearly and quite unambiguously details the fact that any DIRECT DECREE form the CREATOR cannot be circumvented. An example would be that Divine Decree mandates that MURDER shall always be considered a crime against humanity...any law that attempts to circumvent that decree is UNJUST, but where there is no direct decree...the legislators have SCOPE to create their own laws and regulation, with the example given...the import or export of materials to other nations..etc.

If one uses the Blackstone theory as was used by SCOTUS for almost two centuries....LIFE itself is declared to be a SELF EVIDENT....transcending right (coming from the Creator and not man), and is unalienable (non-transferable) by the LAW of man or ANY INDIVIDUAL...to include the mother, unless CRIMES against humanity can be established by at least 3 witnesses and judged by a JURY of the accused peers.

When Roe v. Wade was decided (in all its unjust glory that allows LIFE to be transferred to the personal whim of a single individual).....the court IGNORED over two hundred years of ESTABLISHED legal precedent and REFUSED to kick this STATE decision back to where it belonged...the state of gestation. Instead they decided to completely ignore the 10th article of the States Bill of Rights and MAKE NEW LAW FROM the bench and impose said OPINED law on all 50 states...directly against the CONSTITUTION of the United States, as WE THE PEOPLE/STATES rights were completely circumvented by MERE OPINION, as there is nothing in the Federal Constitution concerning the point at which LIFE BEGINS, as such this Silence of the Constitution should be the Property of the STATES. When the Constitution is to EVOLVE...it is up to Society/WE THE PEOPLE to do as much through a legal procedure called a Constitutional Amendment...it should not be allowed to evolve by the majority opinion of 9 non-elected CIVIL SERVANTS, with lifetime appointments and NO OVERSIGHT to fear when they DICTATE their personal ideologies from the bench.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Religion has little to do with opposition to the legalized killing of unborn human life. And you won't find me arguing religion to oppose it. Though I will mention that as a religious person I believe in a person's Soul.

Science is used to claim that a fetus is not a person until a certain date of the pregnancy which is simply false. A fetus of a human has no other potential then to BECOME a human. Once it is known to exist it is a human life. Scientifically it can be nothing else.

The tired old excuse that if a woman has a miscarriage is that murder too, in order to justify abortion is a red herring. Unless an outside force, the mother or someone else sets out to CAUSE a miscarriage it is just nature taking its course.

Scientifically a human fetus at any stage of development is a HUMAN. It will either miscarriage or be born as a human. There is no third option. Even allowing for babies born dead, does not change the outcome of what a human fetus will become.

Arguing that the fetus has no brain activity at a certain age in the birth process does not change that it is HUMAN. It is simply a convenient excuse to justify the death of a human child unborn. Because if the fetus is viable it WILL have a brain and it WILL have brain activity.

Science does not change the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life.

 

[JBeukema]

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

]
You would believe it in regards to your religion?

It's impossible to force your religion on others.

I think the numerous persons who had run-ins with he Catholics in the Americas would disagree

 

[JBeukema]

Religion has little to do with opposition to the legalized killing of unborn human life. And you won't find me arguing religion to oppose it.

Yet you recognize that tose on the Left who support the abortion industry have historically painted it as such, in order to us 'legislation of religion' as a strawman argument and avoid defending their actual position, yes?

Science is used to claim that a fetus is not a person until a certain date of the pregnancy

Not really. They try to cite brainwaves and such as evidence for a metaphysical 'personhood' usually after science shows their claims of 'it's not alive' or oit's my body' to be false. When they reach this point, I find it interesting that they try to sasai 'it's not a person'. Never do they say 'I believe we should be allowed to kill this person, and this is why:'


I think it says muchj that they can never say outright what it is they're arguing for

 

[eots]

"anti-lifer" is a strawman. Not worth reading the rest of your silly rant.

Anti-choicers are anti-lifers.
Pro choice is pro life.

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

 

[Ravi]

Let me say this, JButtemia, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legislating someone else's morals...even a twitty atheist OPINION like your OPINION is still forcing your moralist beliefs on the rest of the country.

Move to Saudi Arabia.

 

[eots]

all laws are legislating someone elses morality and your opinion does not represent...the rest of the country

 

[Ravi]

all laws are legislating someone elses morality

Wrong. Some are, but good law only protects an American citizen's civil rights.

 

[eots]

lol....civil rights are someones moral beliefs

 

[Ravi]

lol....civil rights are someones moral beliefs

How so?