In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[Erikaspirit16]

It is just that you are inconsistent.

Not inconsistent. Read my posts please. Flexibility is not inconsistency. I have said several times it depends on the issue how much “consensus” you need. And yes, it would be fine to debate that. For example, the Constitution says that 3/4 of the states have to ratify a new amendment–not 51%. Is 75% better than 70% or 80%? That’s debatable. What’s not debatable is that such an important matter shouldn’t settled by a simple majority of 50% + 1.

So, again, how do you propose to make a decision in such case?

Flip a coin?

I already said. There should have been a higher threshold than 50% + 1. It should have been at least 60%, with each country in the UK reaching the 60% level. If one voted no, no it would be. But they didn’t listen to me, and look where they are now! And if “an important issue” is deadlocked 50-50? Don’t do anything. Again, I’m not talking about administrative or technical issues, but the issue of making something legal or illegal. No consensus, no action. Wait.

You want to use this “term” for beliefs you do not like.

Yes, it is inconsistent.

If you don’t see the difference, nothing I can say will change that. You’re on your own.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think that the question is whether the secular have a right to impose their views onto the religious.

Everyone seems really intent on making this God-fearing Catholics vs. liberal atheists. It’s not. It’s several versions of Christianity vs. other religions…and yes, some atheists too. But you can’t simply ignore the position of other religions. And we’re not talking Heaven’s Gate or something, we’re talking Islam and Judaism among others.

And it’s not a question of secular vs. religious at all–it’s a question of a small minority vs. a large majority. Look at the Gallup poll I posted: You seem to want 18% of the population to impose its view of abortion on 79% who disagree. Dictatorship? Theocracy?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem is, it is a human life.

No one skipped this stage of development.

Jim

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The problem is, it is a human life.

I love it when people keep repeating things like a mantra. YOU think it’s a human life. Others don’t. That’s the issue. And once again, don’t confuse two totally different things: Is X living? vs. Is X a human life?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The other thing we can all agree on is known as the golden rule which for Catholicism is “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Agreed. Let’s build on that. You want to cut down on, or even eliminate abortions? No problem. Here’s what you can do:

Give any pregnant woman the best health care available.
If she misses work because of pregnancy, pay her…how about what you would pay if she were disabled?
After she gives birth, pay her again for…pick a period. Six months?
After that? Pay her a flexible sum per month per child based on her income. Make it worth her while to keep the baby.
Medical care? Free medical care until the baby turns 18. Don’t turn the child into a liability.
Child care? Free until the child is school age.
What if she gets married? Don’t penalize her by taking any of these benefits away–keep them in place. Maybe even give her a nice wedding bonus.
She wants to give the baby up for adoption? Great. Let her, and make adoptions easy.

Fantasy? A lot of countries do exactly just these things. Generally it’s the same people who say “America’s the richest country in the world” who in the next breath say “Oh, we can’t possibly afford what most developed countries do.” You want to end abortions? Stop making the baby a financial burden to the mother. Not worth higher taxes? What happened to your moral absolutes?

 

[edwest211]

Everyone reading this began the same way, but the question is still asked. Any woman who finds she is pregnant soon realizes this is a fact, not a debate.

 

[edwest211]

Please. Nothing vague.

 

[edwest211]

Money is not the answer.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Money is not the answer.

OK, what is? Making abortion illegal?

How about this: “Countries with the most restrictive abortion laws also have the highest rates of abortion, the study by the Guttmacher Institute found. Easier access to birth control drives down abortion rates, the report also finds.” This was a report in the last few months. Here’s a link: Abortion rates go down when countries make it legal: report

Why not take a look at some actual facts rather than speculating idly? Here are the actual current rates of abortions per 1,000 women by region:
W. Europe —12 per 1,000 have abortions
S. Africa & N. Europe–15
N. Europe & Pacific—17
N. Africa & S. Europe–18

N. America—19.
After that, we get into the developing world and the abortion rates shoot up as high as 60/1000 in Belize.

So you tell me, why would people in the developing world have many times the abortion rate as the developed world? Why would W. Europe have the lowest abortion rate? Maybe they’re more religious? Really?

Money not the answer? Maybe it’s not THE answer, but it’s certainly AN answer. Take away the financial burden of having a baby, and poof, abortion rates go down. Increase the financial burden, poof, the rates go up. Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, it’s been fun playing. I’m off to bed.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Please. Nothing vague.

Wait. You’re making my brain hurt. You’re telling me–who posts almost nothing but links, polls, research findings, and facts from reputable sources–that I’m VAGUE? OK…I forgot for a second I was living in Trump World. Sorry. Facts don’t matter. Facts are fake news. I get it…I won’t do it again. Nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking from now on.

 

[Bradskii]

edwest211:

Please. Nothing vague.

Wait. You’re making my brain hurt. You’re telling me–who posts almost nothing but links, polls, research findings, and facts from reputable sources–that I’m VAGUE? OK…I forgot for a second I was living in Trump World. Sorry. Facts don’t matter. Facts are fake news. I get it…I won’t do it again. Nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking from now on.

I think he was being sarcastic. Actually I am sincerely hoping he was being sarcastic.

From what I know of Ed, trying to get him to accept well thought out solutions and the facts that back them up is like expecting a Trump supporter to accept that Fox news is a parody of genuine journalism.

 

[Dan123]

Offer her birth control at affordable rates or free and education to use it as well. Severely cuts down on unintended pregnancies and abortions. Fighting contraception leads to more abortions.

 

[ATraveller]

YOU think it’s a human life. Others don’t.

Nazi Germany considered many people to be subhumans so…

 

[ATraveller]

Not really. A large portion of abortions are from contraceptives that failed.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Secular repressive societies make the most gruesome dictatorships, the twentieth century proves that. I suppose you have a fetish for forcing bakers and photographers that reject certain lifestyles to be forced to accommodate them with their services when they can easily go elsewhere. Dictatorship? I’m sure you have an explanation for that, your type always do with your double standards and I have a multitude of other examples. Game on.

And I’m an Orthodox Christian by the way and we take our Christianity much more serious than most Catholics do.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

If it is not a human life then what is it? Just a glob of jelly and cells? Is this true for “late term abortions” too, sorry I prefer partial birth. See, I can play at words too. When does the unborn child, if I may use such terminology, become a human life? Personally, I really don’t care what secular repressives think. Since you likely consider what I have to say to be “hate speech,” you can be assured that I couldn’t care less.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What others think is irrelevant.

Scientists all agree that human life begins at conception and nobody skips this process in utero development.

Other’s turn a blind eye toward the reality that what they destroy is in fact a human life.

It’s in it’s earliest stage, but if left to develop, becomes a fetus, then is born a human being, a person.

The arguments made in Roe V Wade were that the fetus is not yet a person and therefor not protected under the US Constitution.

Fine, but when your mother conceived, what was that zygote, which became an embryo, a fetus than a baby ? Was it not you from the beginning ?

I’m not naive about the political realities we have in our society. There is no way any politician in the US government is going to write a law making abortion prior to viability, illegal. They can’t do it and couldn’t put a penalty in that would make the law work.

However, we as Christians must educate others to what abortion is all about, and hopefully the truth will lead them in the right direction of not destroying their own flesh and blood.

Jim

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Nazi Germany considered many people to be subhumans so…

Yeah, that’s it! I must be a Nazi. Never mind that I keep steadfastly defending the Jewish (among others) point of view. It’s your side that wants to brush aside Jewish morality in this case. I respect it.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What others think is irrelevant.

Now that’s a recipe for totalitarianism if I ever heard one. Love thy neighbor as yourself…I guess that’s out of the question.

Scientists all agree that human life begins at conception

Nope. They agree that the cell is alive and that it MIGHT grow into a human being. But to recognize those cells (THAT cell at first) as a “human being” goes beyond science and into theology. And, as I’ve said over and over, there are reasonable milestones you could use to determine that. The moment a sperm penetrates an ovum is one. The moment the cells develop their own DNA is another. The moment the cells attach themselves to the uterus wall is another. The moment you can detect a heartbeat is another. The moment you can detect movement is another. I could go on… But reasonable (and very religious) people can and do disagree over which of these milestones they want to use.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s not a recipe for totalitarianism, we as a society have laws based on moral principles. It use to be the point of reference was the Ten Commandments, but we have those, like you seem to be suggesting here, that morality is relevant to the individual. So, although we want a society where we love our neighbor, there were societies where they ate their neighbors. Should we have not impose our morality on them ?

Nope. They agree that the cell is alive and that it MIGHT grow into a human being. But to recognized those cells (THAT cell at first) as a “human being” goes beyond science and into theology.

Read again what I wrote, "Scientist all agree that human life BEGINS, at conception. No one skips this stage of development, even you.

In the first stages, it’s not a human being, but have no doubt about it, if not interfered with by human intervention or another event, it will become a human being, a person.

However, even the Church does not know when ensoulment takes place. However, the Church chooses to error on the side of life.

Jim