Gallup Finds "Pro-Choice" Americans Back Most Abortion Limits

[smichhertz]

It’s moral law to a Catholic. It’s Catholic law to a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Baptist, etc.

Again, no moral law is universal. It is not subject to religion. If what you were saying were true, then any person would be justified in any act provided it was acceptable to a religion.

For Catholics, yes. But what the Catholic Church teaches is only binding to Catholics and that’s because Catholics choose to be bound by the Catholic Church…

Something isn’t right because someone chooses to be bound to it. Its right because its objectively true. Again, this is moral law, not individual religious law.

I did answer your point, you just don’t like my answer, and I’m sorry about that. But those are my answers. And, First of all, it’s not “okay”. I never said it was okay. I said it was a woman’s choice. However, no one outside of herself should have the authority to trump the decisions she makes over her own body. In order to get to the unborn, you have to go through her. It’s her body…

No you didn’t answer my point and you still haven’t. You still continually refer to an abortion as something being done to a woman’s body. It’s not, its something done to the baby’s body. You have yet to respond to this point and show me how an abortion is something directed solely to a woman’s body. You then state that it’s not okay for a woman to have an abortion, but then affirm a woman’s right to choose it. So it’s not okay to have an abortion, but its okay to choose to have an abortion?

Exactly. This is a teaching imposed on Catholics by the Catholic Church because “God says so”. Well, the other religions say the same, and their “moral laws” differ. And they should be allowed to practice their religion just as Catholics want to practice theirs.

No, it is imposed because it is objectively true. I don’t need to even mention God to show how abortion is clearly immoral. Once we establish that it is immoral, it doesn’t matter if a religious body accepts it, it remains immoral.

Again, it’s not as universal as you would want it to be, otherwise all the religions and cultures would share it across that board. That’s what “universal” is. It’s all-inclusive.

And again, you didn’t answer my point. My point is that the moral law is universal, you once again claim that something can only be held as universal if everyone accepts it. Earlier, you agreed here that moral laws are not based on one’s agreement to them. Assuming you still agree as you did then, moral law must be objectively universal. So either way, you contradicted yourself and you need to clarify your position on moral law.

Murder is unlawful killing. Labeling “murder” on abortion is not universal. And those religions and cultures who call it such, still make exception for the cases of rape and when the woman’s health is at risk.

Again, as I already stated here that is NOT the definition of murder. You are attempting to use a legal definition of murder when we are discussing things from a moral perspective. We cannot restrict murder to simply all “unlawful” killing because then we would be justifying all killing simply because it is legal. Such a definition is useful for the court of law, but totally unacceptable from a moral perspective. The working definition I have been using for murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Abortion falls under this category.

No, we’re not dealing with a universal moral law that is binding on everyone. We are dealing with a Catholic law…

No, it is a universal law binding on everyone. That’s what moral law means. Otherwise, we have no objective law to use to declare something immoral.

That’s true. Labeling abortion as murder is false, by definition, because murder is unlawful killing.

Nope, murder can be lawful. See above about moral vs legal definition.

According to the teachings of the Church, for which there is no exceptions, and is binding on all who hold themselves bound to it. According to “everyone else”, exceptions are made for rape and when the mother’s life is in danger. And everyone has the right to live their lives according to and within the confines of their religion, even non-Catholics.

No, its binding on everyone, even athiests and those who do not agree with or believe themselves bound to it.

No one can bind you to Catholicism if you don’t let them bind you to. …

I’m not binding anyone to Catholicism. I’m affirming that we are all bound to an objective universal moral law. And we must, otherwise we could never declare things immoral.

… You keep talking about the Church’s laws being binding universally. However binding you think they are, what it boils down to is another persons acceptance of these bonds that hold them to the rules of the Church. The US will not base laws based on any one religion, it would be unconstitutional.

NO. The Church’s laws are NOT binding universally. The MORAL LAW is binding universally. Simply because someone has free will does not give them free reign to do whatever they please. They must still refrain from committing immoral acts. Nor am I asking any civil authority to base its laws on another religion. I am simply saying there is a universal moral law that we all are bound by, whether we recognize it or not. That’s pretty basic moral theology. Even an atheist would agree to that.

 

[Rence]

Again, no moral law is universal. It is not subject to religion.

Then where does it come from? Because the Jews don’t recognize it, and neither do the muslims, and neither do the protestants, or lutherans, or atheists. So this “moral law” had to come from somewhere.

Something isn’t right because someone chooses to be bound to it. Its right because its objectively true. Again, this is moral law, not individual religious law.

Who makes moral law?

No you didn’t answer my point and you still haven’t. You still continually refer to an abortion as something being done to a woman’s body. It’s not, its something done to the baby’s body.You have yet to respond to this point and show me how an abortion is something directed solely to a woman’s body.

In order to get to the fetus, you have to go through the woman’s body. The act is done on the woman’s body first. The medical treatment is done to the woman.

You then state that it’s not okay for a woman to have an abortion, but then affirm a woman’s right to choose it. So it’s not okay to have an abortion, but its okay to choose to have an abortion?

It’s the right of a woman to consent or refuse treatment done on her body and regarding her body. The medical rights over a woman’s body are her own. Not someone else outside and apart from her.

No, it is imposed because it is objectively true. I don’t need to even mention God to show how abortion is clearly immoral. Once we establish that it is immoral, it doesn’t matter if a religious body accepts it, it remains immoral.

Not everyone believes it is immoral.

And again, you didn’t answer my point. My point is that the moral law is universal, you once again claim that something can only be held as universal if everyone accepts it. Earlier, you agreed here that moral laws are not based on one’s agreement to them. Assuming you still agree as you did then, moral law must be objectively universal. So either way, you contradicted yourself and you need to clarify your position on moral law.

“the moral law” cannot be universal otherwise everyone would accept it, that’s what makes it “universal”. Moral laws are not based on one’s agreement to them, that would not make it universal. If everyone (not ONE) would agree, then it would be universal.

Again, as I already stated here that is NOT the definition of murder. You are attempting to use a legal definition of murder when we are discussing things from a moral perspective. We cannot restrict murder to simply all “unlawful” killing because then we would be justifying all killing simply because it is legal. Such a definition is useful for the court of law, but totally unacceptable from a moral perspective. The working definition I have been using for murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Abortion falls under this category.

By whose standards?

No, it is a universal law binding on everyone. That’s what moral law means. Otherwise, we have no objective law to use to declare something immoral.

If it is a unversal law and binding on everyone, that would be true everywhere, not just within the Church.

Nope, murder can be lawful. See above about moral vs legal definition.

Murder is unlawful killing. Redefining it according to one’s religion doesn’t make it so.

No, its binding on everyone, even athiests and those who do not agree with or believe themselves bound to it.

If that were true, then atheists wouldn’t be able to procure an abortion.

I’m not binding anyone to Catholicism. I’m affirming that we are all bound to an objective universal moral law. And we must, otherwise we could never declare things immoral.

Of course you’re binding everyone to Catholicism because the Catholic Church defines what you call “universal moral law”.

NO. The Church’s laws are NOT binding universally. The MORAL LAW is binding universally.

The moral law to which you refer is based on Catholic laws, which make them the Church’s laws, not “universal moral laws”.

Simply because someone has free will does not give them free reign to do whatever they please. They must still refrain from committing immoral acts. Nor am I asking any civil authority to base its laws on another religion. I am simply saying there is a universal moral law that we all are bound by, whether we recognize it or not. That’s pretty basic moral theology. Even an atheist would agree to that.

yes, it’s basic moral “theology”. Thank you. That’s what I’ve been saying.

 

[Oruwaith]

In order to get to the fetus, you have to go through the woman’s body. The act is done on the woman’s body first. The medical treatment is done to the woman.

It’s the right of a woman to consent or refuse treatment done on her body and regarding her body. The medical rights over a woman’s body are her own. Not someone else outside and apart from her.

.

Could you please elaborate?

How does the treatment of the woman’s body first make her have rights over whether or not a person should live?

 

[Rence]

Could you please elaborate?

How does the treatment of the woman’s body first make her have rights over whether or not a person should live?

I already did. Please see my previous posts.

 

[Oruwaith]

I already did. Please see my previous posts.

"When looking at a woman straight in the eyes who was just raped, and is in the ER and desperately wanting Plan B to ensure she doesn’t get pregnant…it makes me sick to my stomach to think that another person outside of herself thinks they can trump her rights and can withhold that medication and claim she can’t have it because it may cause an abortion. It should be her decision based on her beliefs and religion.

Even if it’s a rare case, it makes me sick to my stomach to think that another person outside herself thinks they can trump her rights over her own self, and thinks they can dictate to the Jewish/Muslim/Baptist/Lutheran/Atheist that she can’t terminate a pregnancy (that her body for whatever reason can’t take and she is in danger of losing her life) when her physician ordered it and she has consented to it, and her family consented to it — just because that person outside of herself is Catholic, when in fact, she is not."

Did I quote the right material? Or is it further back?

 

[Oruwaith]

@ RENCE.

Okay, I think I have an idea where you are coming from. The scenario that you are talking about would be if the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy, correct? Like, she would die by trying to give birth to the child?

 

[smichhertz]

Then where does it come from? Because the Jews don’t recognize it, and neither do the muslims, and neither do the protestants, or lutherans, or atheists. So this “moral law” had to come from somewhere.
Who makes moral law?
In order to get to the fetus, you have to go through the woman’s body. The act is done on the woman’s body first. The medical treatment is done to the woman.
It’s the right of a woman to consent or refuse treatment done on her body and regarding her body. The medical rights over a woman’s body are her own. Not someone else outside and apart from her.
Not everyone believes it is immoral.
“the moral law” cannot be universal otherwise everyone would accept it, that’s what makes it “universal”. Moral laws are not based on one’s agreement to them, that would not make it universal. If everyone (not ONE) would agree, then it would be universal.
By whose standards?
If it is a unversal law and binding on everyone, that would be true everywhere, not just within the Church.
Murder is unlawful killing. Redefining it according to one’s religion doesn’t make it so.
If that were true, then atheists wouldn’t be able to procure an abortion.
Of course you’re binding everyone to Catholicism because the Catholic Church defines what you call “universal moral law”.
The moral law to which you refer is based on Catholic laws, which make them the Church’s laws, not “universal moral laws”.
yes, it’s basic moral “theology”. Thank you. That’s what I’ve been saying.

Rence,

Firstly, my apologies in taking so long to respond, I’ve been crazy busy.

Secondly, this conversation is going in circles. We keep rehashing the same things over and over again, so I think there’s a miscommunication between us. I’m going to restate a few things and see if that helps clarify:

My position, as well as the Church’s is that there is a universal moral law. Everyone in the universe is required to do right and avoid wrong and there are no exceptions to that rule. Furthermore, certain things are simply always right and always wrong. An example would be murder and rape, which are always wrong.

Your position is that there is no universal right and wrong, and that morality is instead determined by which religion you are part of. So something like the human sacrifice of the Aztecs would be completely justified in your opinion, because their religion saw it as a good, therefore it is right since their religion is okay with it. Therefore it is impossible for anything to be wrong unless the religion a person professes teaches that it is wrong.

I’ll pause there and allow you to comment. Am I accurately stating your position?

 

[Rence]

Rence,

Firstly, my apologies in taking so long to respond, I’ve been crazy busy.

Secondly, this conversation is going in circles. We keep rehashing the same things over and over again, so I think there’s a miscommunication between us. I’m going to restate a few things and see if that helps clarify:

My position, as well as the Church’s is that there is a universal moral law. Everyone in the universe is required to do right and avoid wrong and there are no exceptions to that rule. Furthermore, certain things are simply always right and always wrong. An example would be murder and rape, which are always wrong.

Your position is that there is no universal right and wrong, and that morality is instead determined by which religion you are part of.

No, my position is not “that there is no universal right and wrong”. My position is that if a moral law was universal, everyone would share it. Such as, “Thou shalt not murder” is a universal law, which says, it’s immoral to kill unlawfully. Or, “Thou shalt not steal”. Pretty much in ever society, there are moral and/or legal ramifications for stealing. However, abortion in the case of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger is NOT universally taught as “immoral”.

My position is not that “morality is instead determined by which religion you are part of”. My position is that people in general believe that the rules and laws dictated by their religion are “morally correct” and have the right to practice their religion, and live within the confines of that religion.

So something like the human sacrifice of the Aztecs would be completely justified in your opinion, because their religion saw it as a good, therefore it is right since their religion is okay with it. Therefore it is impossible for anything to be wrong unless the religion a person professes teaches that it is wrong.

No, that’s not my opinion.

I’ll pause there and allow you to comment. Am I accurately stating your position?

No. My position is that there is a big difference between a universal law, and a “moral law” imposed by a certain culture or religion, as I described above.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No, my position is not “that there is no universal right and wrong”. My position is that if a moral law was universal, everyone would share it. Such as, “Thou shalt not murder” is a universal law, which says, it’s immoral to kill unlawfully. Or, “Thou shalt not steal”. Pretty much in ever society, there are moral and/or legal ramifications for stealing. However, abortion in the case of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger is NOT universally taught as “immoral”.

My position is not that “morality is instead determined by which religion you are part of”. My position is that people in general believe that the rules and laws dictated by their religion are “morally correct” and have the right to practice their religion, and live within the confines of that religion.

No, that’s not my opinion.

No. My position is that there is a big difference between a universal law, and a “moral law” imposed by a certain culture or religion, as I described above.

OK some cultures think it’s great to stone women for adultery, we don’t.

Would the idea that stoning women is wrong be a “universal moral law”. If it is, why don’t some people share that idea?

 

[Rence]

OK some cultures think it’s great to stone women for adultery, we don’t.

Would the idea that stoning women is wrong be a “universal moral law”. If it is, why don’t some people share that idea?

Why would I know why some culture would go against “universal moral law”? Why do you think some people share that idea?

 

[emstrem]

Now I’m a man, so I really dont care what a woman does with her body, I’ve always been pro-choice & there is nothing that will ever change my mind on that. My ex wife had an abortion when she was 17. Now it was bad enough that the 1st of our 3 kids was born when she was 16 and I was 17. In all of our lives that was one of the best decisions that we ever made.It allowed us to concentrate on our now 25 year old combat medic in the Army, our 18 year old daughter, & 15 year old son. To hell with living on the streets like a hobo w/ two baby’s like a Maury show. China has the right idea.

 

[smichhertz]

No, my position is not “that there is no universal right and wrong”. My position is that if a moral law was universal, everyone would share it.Such as, “Thou shalt not murder” is a universal law, which says, it’s immoral to kill unlawfully. Or, “Thou shalt not steal”. Pretty much in ever society, there are moral and/or legal ramifications for stealing. However, abortion in the case of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger is NOT universally taught as “immoral”.

My position is not that “morality is instead determined by which religion you are part of”. My position is that people in general believe that the rules and laws dictated by their religion are “morally correct” and have the right to practice their religion, and live within the confines of that religion.

But not everyone agrees to murder or theft being wrong. There have been many societies that have committed legalized murder. I already gave the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as an example, Nazi Germany would be another one. Slavery is another good example, that was a clear violation of universal moral law, and yet it was widely accepted and practiced by many societies.

So if your position is seriously that universal moral laws are only universal if everyone agrees to them, then there is no point in having a universal moral law. A person simply has to say “I don’t agree with that” and then they are free to do as they please, since now not everyone agrees to it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Why would I know why some culture would go against “universal moral law”? Why do you think some people share that idea?

So stoning a woman for adultery “is unversally immoral”, although some people still do it, and believe it to be fine.

Why is it universally immoral?

 

[Rence]

But not everyone agrees to murder or theft being wrong.

Which societies and cultures allow murder and theft without any social and/or legal ramifications? I don’t know of any myself…

There have been many societies that have committed legalized murder. I already gave the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as an example, Nazi Germany would be another one. Slavery is another good example, that was a clear violation of universal moral law, and yet it was widely accepted and practiced by many societies.

Yes, there have been societies that have deviated from the norm.

So if your position is seriously that universal moral laws are only universal if everyone agrees to them, then there is no point in having a universal moral law. A person simply has to say “I don’t agree with that” and then they are free to do as they please, since now not everyone agrees to it.

We’re not talking about a person simply saying, “I don’t agree with that”. If you are, then that’s another story. But at least I am not.

 

[Rence]

So stoning a woman for adultery “is unversally immoral”, although some people still do it, and believe it to be fine.

Why is it universally immoral?

Why do you think it’s universally immoral?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What I want for you to explain to me is:

Why is stoning a woman wrong…if some cultures think it’s morally correct? According to your definition for something to be wrong universally all cultures must agree. Some cultures think stoning a woman is not murder but just.

Why are we allowed to believe stoning a woman is wrong? Wouldn’t I be imposing my Catholic values on others by thinking that stoning is wrong?

 

[Rence]

What I want for you to explain to me is:

Why is stoning a woman wrong…if some cultures think it’s morally correct? According to your definition for something to be wrong universally all cultures must agree. Some cultures think stoning a woman is not murder but just.

Why are we allowed to believe stoning a woman is wrong? Wouldn’t I be imposing my Catholic values on others by thinking that stoning is wrong?

The above is your senario. I don’t have to explain your senario to you. I have already answered, in earnest, the questions posed as they relate to women’s rights over their own body. You are the one who entered the stoning of women in other countries into the discussion, so you should be the one answering the questions, not demanding it of me.

I can say this about your senario: I live in a country where women are not stoned for the pleasure of men, and they are not the property of the men in their lives – and I thank God for it every day. I live in a country where the majority of citizens believe in the right of a woman (and everyone else) to have control over her own body, and to have the right to consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body. She is the one with the right to consent. The value that is held to these principles reflects in the laws of our nation. * The women in your senario don’t have any rights over their own body – because it is owned by somebody else – that’s why they are disposable and can be stoned.* It also explains why “Gallup Finds ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans Back Most Abortion Limits”. They reject some people’s notion that another separate person should have the right to veto a woman’s decision to either consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body, so that they, not she, dicate decisions over that woman’s very body.

The majority of the world affords women rights over her own body, except for the ones you describe above that enjoy stoning women. Most countries, even the ones in which abortion is illegal, allow choice in the case of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. This makes your ‘stone women’ countries an anomaly, not a special exception to the norm to be regarded well. The immorality of stoning women for the sake of the enjoyment of men is a universal moral law. Just because a few break those laws doesn’t make them right. That, rather, makes them deviant. They are merely like anyone else who deprives a woman the right over herself. That makes them the exception, not the rule.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The above is your senario. I don’t have to explain your senario to you. I have already answered, in earnest, the questions posed as they relate to women’s rights over their own body. You are the one who entered the stoning of women in other countries into the discussion, so you should be the one answering the questions, not demanding it of me.

I can say this about your senario: I live in a country where women are not stoned for the pleasure of men, and they are not the property of the men in their lives – and I thank God for it every day. I live in a country where the majority of citizens believe in the right of a woman (and everyone else) to have control over her own body, and to have the right to consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body. She is the one with the right to consent. The value that is held to these principles reflects in the laws of our nation. * The women in your senario don’t have any rights over their own body – because it is owned by somebody else – that’s why they are disposable and can be stoned.* It also explains why “Gallup Finds ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans Back Most Abortion Limits”. They reject some people’s notion that another separate person should have the right to veto a woman’s decision to either consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body, so that they, not she, dicate decisions over that woman’s very body.

The majority of the world affords women rights over her own body, except for the ones you describe above that enjoy stoning women. Most countries, even the ones in which abortion is illegal, allow choice in the case of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. This makes your ‘stone women’ countries an anomaly, not a special exception to the norm to be regarded well. The immorality of stoning women for the sake of the enjoyment of men is a universal moral law. Just because a few break those laws doesn’t make them right. That, rather, makes them deviant. They are merely like anyone else who deprives a woman the right over herself. That makes them the exception, not the rule.

But what about the killing of the innocent unborn baby? The baby within the mother is an entirely seperate organism.

Just because many think the baby is disposable, the baby does not have the right to live, or that the mother’s rights trump baby, does not make killing them any way moral. For any reason.

Is there any reason to stone a woman? NO. Because she is a human being created in the likeness of God. And it causes you to feel shock and anger and disgust because a woman is being mistreated.

Is there any reason to kill a baby? Well you are mentioning a woman’s autonomous rights over her body. Baby has it’s own body. Baby is entrusted to mom to grow and be preserved. Why should this innocent have no rights and be entirely at the whim of mom?

Most abortions are done for reasons completely other than health. Health reasons, according to Doe v Bolton, do not have to be life and death issues, they can mean psychological, they can mean economical.

You don’t seem to understand that stoning a woman is wrong not because she is being treated as man’s property. What about stoning a man for say the crime of blasphemy? That is done in parts of the world. Is that something that should be considered immoral? Of course. Tell me why that is immoral?

Then tell me why it is moral to kill a baby in the womb? Is it location? Is it because baby is small, mostly invisible? Why?

The fact that we even entertatin the idea the abortion is somehow a woman’s health right is the epitome of deviant.

 

[smichhertz]

Which societies and cultures allow murder and theft without any social and/or legal ramifications? I don’t know of any myself…
Yes, there have been societies that have deviated from the norm.

Exactly! There are societies that deviate from the norm. And when they do, we can rightly condemn them because there is an objective moral law that exists that allows us to do so.

So as I understand it, we agree on two things so far:

1. There is a an objective moral law that everyone is subject to.
2. Societies can deviate from this moral law, and when they do, they are wrong.

Stop me here if I did not get that right.

 

[simple_soul]

The above is your senario. I don’t have to explain your senario to you. I have already answered, in earnest, the questions posed as they relate to women’s rights over their own body. You are the one who entered the stoning of women in other countries into the discussion, so you should be the one answering the questions, not demanding it of me.

I can say this about your senario: I live in a country where women are not stoned for the pleasure of men, and they are not the property of the men in their lives – and I thank God for it every day. I live in a country where the majority of citizens believe in the right of a woman (and everyone else) to have control over her own body, and to have the right to consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body. She is the one with the right to consent. The value that is held to these principles reflects in the laws of our nation. * The women in your senario don’t have any rights over their own body – because it is owned by somebody else – that’s why they are disposable and can be stoned.* It also explains why “Gallup Finds ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans Back Most Abortion Limits”. They reject some people’s notion that another separate person should have the right to veto a woman’s decision to either consent or refuse a treatment done on her own body, so that they, not she, dicate decisions over that woman’s very body.

The majority of the world affords women rights over her own body, except for the ones you describe above that enjoy stoning women. Most countries, even the ones in which abortion is illegal, allow choice in the case of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. This makes your ‘stone women’ countries an anomaly, not a special exception to the norm to be regarded well. The immorality of stoning women for the sake of the enjoyment of men is a universal moral law. Just because a few break those laws doesn’t make them right. That, rather, makes them deviant. They are merely like anyone else who deprives a woman the right over herself. That makes them the exception, not the rule.

Rence, I have been following your responses and I am wondering about something, is it your belief that the only moral way to stop abortion is for all women to freely choose to not have one as a form of medical treatment do matter what the health risks are?