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

[Dan123]

Are bad ideas not bad simply because Group A says they’re not?

Are bad ideas BAD because Group B says they are?

Seems like neither line of reasoning works which is why we tend to seek a definition of good and bad that works for as many people as possible and is based on as many objective facts as possible.

 

[MPat]

I’m against anything that impinges on religious freedom. We have rights whether people like it or not. But the same principles that protect us protect other people of differing beliefs as well. I think a lot of Christians in America confuse the right to religious freedom with the right to a legally enforced Christian utopia. They want a Christian America, not just in a cultural sense, but in a legal sense as defined by Christian principles. I don’t believe that will ever happen so long as America remains a secular democracy.

The qeustion is, do we support democracy, or are we against democracy?

Those are very vague words: “democracy”, “secular democracy”, “religious freedom”…

And I get an impression that you are not all that certain what they mean either, but “know” that you are supposed to like them.

And I don’t think that’s good.

So, can you give us a definition of each of those things?

And afterwards, can you explain why you think they are good or bad?

Or is the main reason for liking them that they seem to be familiar?

 

[IWantGod]

Why don’t you just look the words up on google if you are having difficulty understanding?

 

[MPat]

Why don’t you just look the words up on google if you are having difficulty understanding?

The whole point is that those words have more than one meaning.

For example, “democracy”. Athens had “democracy”. About 10% of inhabitants voted, they had slaves, deportations without trial…

Are you going to claim that yes, that is precisely what you have in mind?

So, stop “evasive action” and define your terms.

 

[deMontfort]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. Please educate yourself to the difference.

 

[Benadam]

It could be argued that since the zygote is determining it’s own growth that is evidence in it’sself of a rational soul. God made man a self determined creature.For the Human zygote the power to self determine is not just potential self determination but the that power is reducing to actuality. Although embryologists agree that the zygote is a human individual. It’s life began at conception and no other factors are required for it to have the same dignity of human life at any other stage of development.
If you are hunting and you see an animal in a bush…but you aren’t sure if that in’t your hunting buddy behind the bush, do you shoot?

 

[Dan123]

I don’t really know what ‘determining its own growth’ means honestly. We’d normally attach ‘determination’ to a capacity for self-aware thought processes which wouldn’t exist until at least some time after the brain began forming.

There are realities of pregnancy that we can’t get away from, so while I appreciate the idea that all life deserves equal respect, most people’s lives aren’t contingent on the ongoing availability of another person’s body. I gave this example either here or in another thread, but imagine a prematurely born child with a failing liver that needs a partial organ transplant from a compatible donor, with the only likely donor to be found in time being the mother.

Perhaps she has good reason or perhaps not, the risks are too high, or she has children already who count on her and the risk of leaving them without a mother is too much, but if she doesn’t risk her life and well-being to give that part of herself, would we call that murder the way abortion is?

What if the only compatible donor is you, even though you have nothing to do with this family? If you choose not to take the risk in undergoing that surgery with no guarantee it will in fact work and the possibility you’ll never wake up, are you a baby murderer?

I don’t think most people would say yes to either of the above, but that does illustrate the difference. A few hours earlier many would have suggested the growing child had an intrinsic right to the mother’s body unless the medical risks of continuing the pregnancy approached 100%.

To be clear I’m not arguing for/against abortion with this scenario just highlighting that normally we don’t force people to risk their lives to save another, even if we celebrate those who do. We don’t even require corpses to give up their organs unless the person expressed a specific desire for that during life, even if that means thousands die each year waiting for life saving organs while those very same organs rot in the ground.

 

[IWantGod]

So you are not a representative democracy?

 

[MPat]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. Please educate yourself to the difference.

Perhaps still more precisely, the word “democracy” has several commonly used meanings.

In fact, the position of “IWantGod” and “Erikaspirit16” seems to rely on mixing up those meanings.

One meaning is simply “a form of government where majority rules and that’s that”. In that sense USA is not a democracy. In fact, it is not so easy to find something good about such democracy.

Another meaning is more or less that same “constitutional republic”, when “majority rule” is almost unnoticeable through separation of powers, rule of law etc. It is easier to like it.

And that’s why they are so evasive about the definitions: it is easy to claim that passing unpopular laws is incompatible with democracy, when the first meaning is used, but one needs the same word to be taken in the second meaning to make democracy seem to be unquestionably good.

I don’t really know what ‘determining its own growth’ means honestly. We’d normally attach ‘determination’ to a capacity for self-aware thought processes which wouldn’t exist until at least some time after the brain began forming.

There are realities of pregnancy that we can’t get away from, so while I appreciate the idea that all life deserves equal respect, most people’s lives aren’t contingent on the ongoing availability of another person’s body. I gave this example either here or in another thread, but imagine a prematurely born child with a failing liver that needs a partial organ transplant from a compatible donor, with the only likely donor to be found in time being the mother.

Perhaps she has good reason or perhaps not, the risks are too high, or she has children already who count on her and the risk of leaving them without a mother is too much, but if she doesn’t risk her life and well-being to give that part of herself, would we call that murder the way abortion is?

That would be relevant for a discussion about morality of removing an embryo, putting it in some sort of an incubator and trying to keep it alive.

But, as you know, abortion does not look like that in the least.

 

[Dan123]

That would be relevant for a discussion about morality of removing an embryo, putting it in some sort of an incubator and trying to keep it alive.

I think that’s a separate issue. When the day comes that we have such technology I suspect the only issue would be money, who knows maybe we’ll be alive to see how it plays out.

My scenario is meant to think about when and how the consent of the mother does and doesn’t apply. How much medical risk should she be forced to accept by nature of being pregnant? I just think the discussion should be more nuanced than ‘abortions for all’ and ‘abortions for none’.

 

[MPat]

I think that’s a separate issue. When the day comes that we have such technology I suspect the only issue would be money, who knows maybe we’ll be alive to see how it plays out.

My scenario is meant to think about when and how the consent of the mother does and doesn’t apply. How much medical risk should she be forced to accept by nature of being pregnant? I just think the discussion should be more nuanced than ‘abortions for all’ and ‘abortions for none’.

It has nothing to do with technology. We already have technology for getting the embryo outside without trying to kill it. And trying to keep it alive requires no technology at all (please note that succeeding hasn’t been mentioned).

But in abortion the very goal is to kill the embryo. And it seems to be usually done in a way that would count as animal cruelty if the same “procedure” was done to a dog.

As you can see, your scenario does not have anything to do with abortion.

 

[Dan123]

Again I was comparing the consent element. You’re not going to find a perfect analogy for something this unique.

 

[MPat]

Again I was comparing the consent element. You’re not going to find a perfect analogy for something this unique.

Then, perhaps, you shouldn’t be using an analogy, if you can’t find a good one?

For that matter, have you ever thought why the embryo is killed rather than just removed? After all, your analogy would suggest that removal would achieve the same goal just as well?

 

[Dan123]

It’s a valid analogy for the consent portion of the discussion.

I don’t think about that much no, largely because that generally is what’s done. Most abortions occur before 13 weeks and the procedure uses suction to remove the embryo and placenta. In the rare case that one occurs later in the pregnancy if it’s remotely viable they’ll simply deliver it instead. There’s a narrow window of time and situations where more drastic procedures are used.

 

[IWantGod]

In fact, the position of “IWantGod” and “Erikaspirit16” seems to rely on mixing up those meanings.

One meaning is simply “a form of government where majority rules and that’s that”. In that sense USA is not a democracy. In fact, it is not so easy to find something good about such democracy.

Another meaning is more or less that same “constitutional republic”, when “majority rule” is almost unnoticeable through separation of powers, rule of law etc. It is easier to like it.

And that’s why they are so evasive about the definitions: it is easy to claim that passing unpopular laws is incompatible with democracy, when the first meaning is used, but one needs the same word to be taken in the second meaning to make democracy seem to be unquestionably good.

It’s easy to make straw-men. This quote is a perfect example

 

[Benadam]

I don’t really know what ‘determining its own growth’ means honestly.

It means that it’s growth is not dependent on any system outside of it’self.it’s growth is being determined by a rational soul . If left unobstructed it’s growth would end in the death of an aged human.

 

[Dan123]

I’m assuming you understand the role a pregnant woman’s body plays in the gestation of an infant. The child is 100% dependent on a system outside itself for the majority of the 9 months it takes before being born.

It is practically speaking dependent on systems outside itself far longer than that but it is at least biologically complete and viable at that point.

 

[Benadam]

the mother isn’t determining the growth of the child. She is giving it the means to determine it’s growth. But she will be doing that for a couple of decades while her child continues to determine it’s growth

 

[MPat]

I don’t think about that much no, largely because that generally is what’s done. Most abortions occur before 13 weeks and the procedure uses suction to remove the embryo and placenta. In the rare case that one occurs later in the pregnancy if it’s remotely viable they’ll simply deliver it instead. There’s a narrow window of time and situations where more drastic procedures are used.

You know, if you want to claim that the abortionists do make at least a token effort to keep the embryo alive, you’d better have a source for that.

And if you do not want to claim so, you’d better think why such an effort is not made.

For if your analogy has any validity at all, it such an effort would be a natural consequence.

It’s easy to make straw-men. This quote is a perfect example

And yet, you do not say where I guessed wrong.

The prediction that follows from my guess is that you are not going to explain what you exactly mean by “democracy”.

And, of course, the prediction comes true: you are not explaining what you mean by “democracy”. In spite of asking, explaining why I ask, even some “shaming” you into answering…

 

[Dan123]

You know, if you want to claim that the abortionists do make at least a token effort to keep the embryo alive, you’d better have a source for that.

I didn’t say that. We have no means to keep a 6 week old embryo alive. The womb is an incredibly complex system that we can’t currently come remotely close to reproducing. It would be like asking why, if someone is decapitated, we don’t try to keep their head alive in a jar like in those scifi movies; the technology doesn’t exist. Viability is certainly possible at an earlier time than 50 years ago and 50 years from now that line will almost certainly be pushed further back than it is now.

There may be a day when we can replicate the womb environment, that would be cool to see in my lifetime. If that technology can be made readily available and affordable you’ll see a sharp decline or elimination of abortion entirely since you’ll no longer have to balance the rights of the mother over her body and that of the fetus. That coupled with improvements to birth control options will likely spell the end to these issues altogether.