11 years in jail for a stillbirth: did the Church in El Salvador support this legislation?

[IWantGod]

Um, those things are also wrong in themselves, objectively.

Let me ask you a qeustion mpat. Are you of the opinion that secular law is based on the recognition of objective moral values?

 

[IWantGod]

Um, you talk as if there are any “self-evident matters” in such case. There are none. Take, for example, slavery. Presumably, you are not going to call for its legalisation, but I doubt you’ll be able to explain why the same reasoning wouldn’t work here.

Self evident matters such as life and death compel us to make laws.

Does the law sometimes allow for things that we don’t like? Yes of course, but if you think that the law on slavery changed because of a recognition of objective moral law given by God you are mistaken and naive. The law changed because in some way shape or form it was no longer practical to maintain and was no longer consistent with the goal of society as a whole…

 

[IWantGod]

Also, there is no such thing as a “social contract”. Or are you going to present a copy of it?

The social contract is a political concept proposing that there is an implied agreement between individuals and the society to which they belong, in which they agree to adhere to that society’s laws and norms in exchange for the benefits of thereto belonging. In simpler terms, it is the idea that people naturally give up a small degree of individual liberties in exchange for the protections of society.[1]

The theory was largely developed during the Enlightenment and parts of it formed the basis for many of the advances in political freedoms during that time (not the other way around). As a theory which attributes natural rights to natural law rather than a deity, the social contract is a popular example of secular morality.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_contract

Are you not aware that this is the society that you live in now? Because if you are not aware, i have to say that is astounding

 

[IWantGod]

Even in the very extreme cases, we can find examples of totalitarian societies (for example, North Korea) existing for years.

Do you at least agree that a totalitarian society, even a religious one, is not a good thing? Because if you do agree, then surely you support the idea of a secular democracy.

 

[Hideyplace]

The only reason abortion is morally wrong is because God created the soul in his image and creates that soul from the moment of conception. Otherwise it would not be wrong to have an abortion.

What??? Even some atheists believe abortion is wrong. Even someone who doesn’t believe in a soul can understand the scientific fact that the zygote which results from conception is a unique individual. The zygote is alive and it’s human. If not human, what is it? Not a donkey, pig, or dog, right?

 

[IWantGod]

Not to mention that the same “secular democracy” does seem to be pretty willing to force Catholics to act against conscience.

If they are, then that would be inconsistent with your religious rights, and it makes sense for you to lobby against it. However nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. The problem is that neither can the law prevent anyone from having one because there is no evidence that a human embryo from the moment of conception has the same value or should have the same value as a person living out side of the womb…

 

[IWantGod]

What??? Even some atheists believe abortion is wrong.

It’s irrelevant. Everybody has their own personal beliefs, but that does not mean it can function as law for the rest of society.

I don’t think its wrong because some atheist doesn’t like abortion, i think its wrong because God said it is wrong full stop. Otherwise it is not wrong.

Perhaps you are operating by some other definition of morality that doesn’t require God’s existence in-order for it to be true. That’s your game.

As far as i am concerned, Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong because of God, and God alone…

 

[MPat]

Let me ask you a qeustion mpat. Are you of the opinion that secular law is based on the recognition of objective moral values?

It must be, or it is no law at all, and is not binding.

Self evident matters such as life and death compel us to make laws.

And yet, you seem to think they are not “self-evident” when abortion is concerned.

but if you think that the law on slavery changed because of a recognition of objective moral law given by God you are mistaken and naive. The law changed because in some way shape or form it was no longer practical to maintain and was no longer consistent with the goal of society as a whole…

That is completely wrong.

Slavery was abolished for religious reasons. Look at, let’s say, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abolitionism_in_the_United_States&oldid=825811188 or Abolitionism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia.

The social contract is a political concept proposing that there is an implied agreement between individuals and the society to which they belong, in which they agree to adhere to that society’s laws and norms in exchange for the benefits of thereto belonging. In simpler terms, it is the idea that people naturally give up a small degree of individual liberties in exchange for the protections of society.[1]

The theory was largely developed during the Enlightenment and parts of it formed the basis for many of the advances in political freedoms during that time (not the other way around). As a theory which attributes natural rights to natural law rather than a deity, the social contract is a popular example of secular morality.

Social contract - RationalWiki

Are you not aware that this is the society that you live in now? Because if you are not aware, i have to say that is astounding

You do understand that even RationalWiki does not seem to claim that there is any truth in that theory here?

Do you at least agree that a totalitarian society, even a religious one, is not a good thing? Because if you do agree, then surely you support the idea of a secular democracy.

You know, “100% Totalitarian society” and “100% Libertarian society” are not the only options.

You having to pretend that no other options exist clearly shows how baseless your position is.

 

[IWantGod]

You know, “100% Totalitarian society” and “100% Libertarian society” are not the only options.

You having to pretend that no other options exist clearly shows how baseless your position is.

You are the one that thinks the social contract doesn’t exist and thinks that secular law operates on a recognition of objective moral values. I don’t think i’m the one being unreasonable here.

 

[Arkansan]

You have failed, yet again, to put forward any argument for why the current system is correct.

 

[IWantGod]

You have failed, yet again, to put forward any argument for why the current system is correct.

Have i? You either accept a secular democracy or you don’t. The fact that you would like to imagine that matters of faith can be dictated to the rest of society through secular law and still have a secular democracy that treats everyone equally, doesn’t speak of my failure to argue my position but rather your failure to understand whats actually going on in the world around you and your failure to comprehend basic facts about the political system you have inherited.

 

[Arkansan]

To be clear, you have not, so far as I can tell, made any argument whatsoever for the notion that secular democracy is good. You’ve also not made any cogent arguments for why even a secular state could not prohibit the killing of unborn children.

 

[IWantGod]

You’ve also not made any cogent arguments for why even a secular state could not prohibit the killing of unborn children.

I have, you simply don’t want to accept it as true. Its simple logic. The system evidently protects children. hmmmmm, i wonder why they don’t protect human embryos from the moment of conception the same way they protect children? Oh i know, its because there is no evidence to suggest that we should treat a human embryo with the same value we give to a child. And all the arguments put forward in defense of the human embryo fall flat for that very reason.

That’s why abortion is legal.

 

[Arkansan]

there is no evidence to suggest that we should treat a human embryo with the same value we give to a child.

There’s no “evidence” for any sort of value judgment. Your argument again is contrary to any form of political decision making.

 

[IWantGod]

I already explained why secular societies make laws. Or perhaps you have been ignoring that as well.

 

[Arkansan]

Typing a string of words (even when organized in a grammatically correct manner) isn’t the same as making a coherent argument. You’ve claimed that value judgments must be based on evidence, then denied that they must be based on evidence, then referred to me an argument you haven’t made.

You’re doing this, presumably, because you haven’t coherently thought about your own position.

 

[IWantGod]

Typing a string of words (even when organized in a grammatically correct manner) isn’t the same as making a coherent argument.

You should take your own advise because right now you are just asserting that i have made no cogent arguments.

 

[IWantGod]

You’ve claimed that value judgments must be based on evidence, then denied that they must be based on evidence, then referred to me an argument you haven’t made.

This is a straw-man.

Show me that this is what i have done.

Practical matters are self-evident to us like life and death and this is the ground upon which laws are developed, the pragmatic sustenance of the system and the society that relies upon it for its survival. Matters of faith are not self-evident, so they are not included in law.

That’s why people work on Sunday, and people can buy contraceptives, and dare i say it, people can have abortions.

 

[Arkansan]

Arkansan:

You’ve claimed that value judgments must be based on evidence, then denied that they must be based on evidence, then referred to me an argument you haven’t made.

This is a straw-man.

Show me that this is what i have done.

Practical matters are self-evident to us like life and death and this is the ground upon which laws are developed, the pragmatic sustenance of the system and the society that relies upon it for its survival. Matters of faith are not self-evident, so they are not included in law.

That’s why people work on Sunday, and people can buy contraceptives, and dare i say it, people can have abortions.

Arkansan:

You’ve also not made any cogent arguments for why even a secular state could not prohibit the killing of unborn children.

I have, you simply don’t want to accept it as true. Its simple logic. The system evidently protects children. hmmmmm, i wonder why they don’t protect human embryos from the moment of conception the same way they protect children? Oh i know, its because there is no evidence to suggest that we should treat a human embryo with the same value we give to a child. And all the arguments put forward in defense of the human embryo fall flat for that very reason.

That’s why abortion is legal.

Abortion is a matter of life and death.

 

[MPat]

You are the one that thinks the social contract doesn’t exist and thinks that secular law operates on a recognition of objective moral values. I don’t think i’m the one being unreasonable here.

Oh, of course you are not going to think you are unreasonable.

But now I’d like to ask you a different thing. Do you think your beliefs on this matter are compatible with the things the Church teaches?

For I see that you citing RationalWiki and I do not see you citing any documents of the Church…