legislating morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter z0wb13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
z0wb13 said:
i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.
Click to expand...
There are a variety of basic human rights and freedoms that must be protected. Sometimes, however, issues arise that force you to rank the relative importance of these various rights and sacrifice one at the expense of another.

The issue of abortion is one of those issues. On one hand, you have the right to life. On the other hand, you have the right to privacy. (Other basic rights include free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and in general, the right to safety, health, and general well-being that tends to fall under the health/safety/morals heading). To be completely accurate, the term used in Roe v. Wade was “the penumbra of privacy.” That’s where the basis lies for the protection of abortion.

So there’s a couple of reasons for why we can do better than this. Number one, this is not an example of getting our priorities right. The right to life is appropriately regarded as more important than the right to privacy. That doesn’t mean a pro-life person hates privacy or women or anything like that, any more than a pro-choice person is pro-death or a baby-killing-hater-awful-person. It’s a matter of relative importance as it pertains to these basic human rights. We believe the right to life is more important than the right to privacy (or its penumbra, if that makes any difference). Perhaps you don’t agree, but we do believe that’s the reality of the situation, that the law should reflect this, and that the law as it now stands does not endorse a view of morality that is true to reality. We probably disagree on that point, but this is where we stand.

Number two, from a strictly legal standpoint, the placement of abortion under the protection of “the penumbra of privacy” is weak at best. A penumbra refers to the twilight region between light and shadow. It’s not entirely in the light, but it’s not entirely in the shadow either. That’s the penumbra, and as far as legal protection goes, it basically amounts to an acknowledgment of the fact that this is, at best, a very tough call and that the right to abort does not fall directly under the banner of a woman’s right to privacy. It’s not fully in the shadow of that right; it’s in the twilight region where it can sort of go either way. That’s how it’s actually presented in Roe v. Wade, and even that is controversial. From a strictly legal point of view, it’s one of the most significant decisions ever made by a Supreme Court and it’s also based on some of the weakest legal footing that we’ve ever seen. These two things combine to form a delicate and volatile situation where everyone knows how weak the legal argument is, but for something this important, it’s awfully hard to reverse the precedent that’s been set forth. And even if it is, abortion won’t be illegal everywhere- that law will once again be in the hands of each individual state.

Pay special attention to that last part. It’s the main reason why I think you’re wrong to believe this pro-life thing is geared toward forcing religious beliefs on people. We know that an outright federal ban of abortion is unrealistic, and we know that the end result of overturning Roe v. Wade does not accomplish this. Surely you know this too?
 
interesting discussion. it seems like abortion has become the focus of this discussion. which is fine, but i’ve seen it pop up a few times that people are miffed that their tax dollars are used to fund abortion. they don’t, regarding federal funds. it is part of the hyde amendment. see this from wikipedia:
In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a “rider” that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.
…
As of 2007, 17 of the 50 states provide such funding [for abortions], and 13 of these are required by court order to do so [consequent to judicial rulings mandating equal access to health care for low-income women.].
Click to expand...
 
cooterhein said:
So there’s a couple of reasons for why we can do better than this. Number one, this is not an example of getting our priorities right. The right to life is appropriately regarded as more important than the right to privacy. That doesn’t mean a pro-life person hates privacy or women or anything like that, any more than a pro-choice person is pro-death or a baby-killing-hater-awful-person. It’s a matter of relative importance as it pertains to these basic human rights. We believe the right to life is more important than the right to privacy (or its penumbra, if that makes any difference). Perhaps you don’t agree, but we do believe that’s the reality of the situation, that the law should reflect this, and that the law as it now stands does not endorse a view of morality that is true to reality. We probably disagree on that point, but this is where we stand.
Click to expand...
people might have a right to life, but i would argue that having any right is dependent on being able to exercise that right. this may sound cold at first glance, but it is functionally true.

take a few examples. animal rights, for instance. why aren’t animals given a right to vote? i think it’s mostly because they can’t vote. how about the dead? they can’t vote either.

legal rights don’t exist without the ability to exercise those rights. or do they? what kinds of rights does a person in a persistent vegetative state reasonably have access to?

regarding when life starts, one could make a pretty convincing argument that life originated 3.5-4 billion years ago. but one cannot practically protect all life. or any life, for that matter, as it’s all just a matter of time before everything breaks down and dies.
 
Let me just interject with an example of how religious views differ on the matter of “When Life Begins”. This might help in bridging the gap between pro-choicers and pro-lifers on this forum.

LDS and Catholics have a different view of when life begins. LDS believes spiritual life exists before we are born. Catholics believe life - both spiritual and mortal - begins at conception. LDS believes that the pre-existent spirit enters the mortal body sometime between conception and birth (usually interpreted as within the first trimester) so that a “soul” does not necessarily start at conception.

What this means - LDS do not believe that a miscarriage is necessarily a death of a spiritual human being. And by extention - LDS do not believe that an abortion done before the end of the first trimester is murder. Therefore, a woman who is raped (the free will - or choice - to be a co-creator with God is removed) may elect to have an abortion within the first trimester after much prayer and appeal to God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it is not considered a sin.

Okay… with that said, LDS are pro-life. That is - they do not agree with the decision on Roe vs. Wade. But yes, they do believe that abortion in special cases such as rape or when the situation leaves one to choose between the life of the baby or the life of the mother needs to stay legal.

Why is this relevant to the OP? Because - this shows how the Catholic viewpoint may not be shared by other Christian faiths, therefore, just because one is pro-choice does not necessarily mean one is not sincerely following the teachings of Christ.

Before I get rotten tomatoes thrown at me - I just want to point out that I - personally - am very pro-life… as in, the Catholic version of pro-life even though I understand where “good” pro-choicers are coming from.
 
Its a weak argument when we talk new-born/mother and critical birth situations. The fact is those are “very” rare and abortion has become the mean’s of Birth Control country wide and is an abomination. So lets cut to the chase and get to the point.

Heroin is legal for medical use in many countrys, but they are not handing it out Planned Herion centers throughtout the world thus giving it a the pubilc nod.

Doesn’t much matter what you think about when the baby was actually conceived, be already by God as in the LDS thinking or during the first/last trimester. The problem is we have came an empase where what was once used as a medical procedure in extremely rare situations.

Its now used as a convienent means of correcting a problem/mistake made by an adult? Or by kids who decided it was OK to act out their immoral, sexual, inadequate, mickey mouse feelings. Used by prostitutes and escorts to promote their negative lifestyle. And those insane choices result in a abomination straight out of hell. Those who chose to interact in a promiscuous lifestyle or allow these feeling’s to control their better thinking are simply responsible for their mistakes.

When we reach a point when people understand that for every play-day there’s a pay-day, then they won’t be so quick to act off their feelings and will begin to think the process through and see the end result.

The thought of “Oh well I’ll just have an abortion” has become as common as “Oh well I’ll have a Bic Mac for lunch”. Another issue which compounds the problem is a large majority of those who quickly make this choice also then burden the country with their therapy, to now deal with the newly created feelings. Which are not mickey mouse and take a great deal of work to come to terms with.

We’ve gone way over the edge of rational thinking and its not a religious issue at all, I have little concern what your faith thinks or doesn’t. The bottom line is its wrong and we’ve taken a procedure which may used in a positive sense and turned it into an abomination, and thats the Truth regardless of the majority or your faith accepting it or not, it still remains the Truth.

Now, as we take “EMERGENY MEDICAL” off the tabel who thinks now this is right thing to uphold and shoud be legalized morality?

Weak arguments to say the least, to promote insanity.

God Bless, Gary
 
GaryTaylor said:
Its a weak argument when we talk new-born/mother and critical birth situations. The fact is those are “very” rare and abortion has become the mean’s of Birth Control country wide and is an abomination. So lets cut to the chase and get to the point.

Heroin is legal for medical use in many countrys, but they are not handing it out Planned Herion centers throughtout the world thus giving it a the pubilc nod.

Doesn’t much matter what you think about when the baby was actually conceived, be already by God as in the LDS thinking or during the first/last trimester. The problem is we have came an empase where what was once used as a medical procedure in extremely rare situations.

Its now used as a convienent means of correcting a problem/mistake made by an adult? Or by kids who decided it was OK to act out their immoral, sexual, inadequate, mickey mouse feelings. Used by prostitutes and escorts to promote their negative lifestyle. And those insane choices result in a abomination straight out of hell. Those who chose to interact in a promiscuous lifestyle or allow these feeling’s to control their better thinking are simply responsible for their mistakes.

When we reach a point when people understand that for every play-day there’s a pay-day, then they won’t be so quick to act off their feelings and will begin to think the process through and see the end result.

The thought of “Oh well I’ll just have an abortion” has become as common as “Oh well I’ll have a Bic Mac for lunch”. Another issue which compounds the problem is a large majority of those who quickly make this choice also then burden the country with their therapy, to now deal with the newly created feelings. Which are not mickey mouse and take a great deal of work to come to terms with.

We’ve gone way over the edge of rational thinking and its not a religious issue at all, I have little concern what your faith thinks or doesn’t. The bottom line is its wrong and we’ve taken a procedure which may used in a positive sense and turned it into an abomination, and thats the Truth regardless of the majority or your faith accepting it or not, it still remains the Truth.

Now, as we take “EMERGENY MEDICAL” off the tabel who thinks now this is right thing to uphold and shoud be legalized morality?

Weak arguments to say the least, to promote insanity.

God Bless, Gary
Click to expand...
Yes… Agree. That’s why LDS is Pro-Life.

All I’m trying to point out is - that there IS religious differences on the matter - even among Christians. So that, when you meet a pro-choice woman, it doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a murderer.
 
z0wb13 said:
i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.
Click to expand...
If you accept the fact that there is such a thing as absolute truth, you will also accept the fact that abortion is murder. Therefore, how can we say that a born person murdering another born person is against the law but yet a born person murdering an unborn person isn’t??? I say that we can’t say that. The law in the United States and indeed in many places around the world is wrong when it comes to abortion. It simply does not matter what someone’s opinion on abortion is, the fact is that abortion is wrong regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with that.

There is such a thing as absolute truth and absolute truth teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil. The Church is God’s organization here on earth to proclaim what the absolute truth is to mankind. The Church has said that abortion is evil for 2000 years, ever since its beginning. The Church has told us what the absolute truth is on abortion and the Church is right. Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. However, agreeing or not does not change the fact that abortion is murder.
 
pinay said:
Yes… Agree. That’s why LDS is Pro-Life.

All I’m trying to point out is - that there IS religious differences on the matter - even among Christians. So that, when you meet a pro-choice woman, it doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a murderer.
Click to expand...
Are the LDS truly pro-life though? Even the LDS’ website admits to the fact that LDS leaders have stated that “…some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” Therefore, I don’t hardly think you can call the LDS church pro-life. Even most Evangelical Christians condemn abortion in the cases of rape and incest so they are more pro-life than the LDS church is. So yeah, how can you truly say that the LDS are pro-life when they allow abortions in such “exceptional circumstances”? The fact is, abortion is wrong, even in those circumstances. Murder doesn’t automatically become something that isn’t murder just because the circumstances are different.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Its a weak argument when we talk new-born/mother and critical birth situations. The fact is those are “very” rare and abortion has become the mean’s of Birth Control country wide and is an abomination. So lets cut to the chase and get to the point.
God Bless, Gary
Click to expand...
Gary, abortion shouldn’t be a means of birth control, but to say that a woman should by law have to die in order to go full term is barbaric, repulsive, and probably could be legally deemed to be murder in itself. This is why I am so glad that there is separation of church and state so that religious zealotry can no longer harm people in the real world.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
I pretty sure all individuals will ultimately agree with what there faith has deemed to be the correct thinking with abortion.

Nonetheless with the issue being legislating morality and the fact that there is seperation of church of state, then the issue becomes not what an individual faiths deem right or wrong.

The fact remains the we as a civil society must conclude that the abortion issue has been allowed to escalate to the point of immoral. Their is no moral thinking involved in this anymore when the very essense of it appeals to the immoral. How could this be Right or Moral?

This thinking is so far over the edge now, that any thinking can be rationalized now including world war and mass murder. Everything Hitler did was also legal. Did that make his thinking Moral and Right? The fact something is legal, or has been a norm is a sorry excuse for moral.

When we reach a point is physics, mathmatics, electrical or any science when its obvious we are wrong. Then we go back to the proven path where we know we are on safe and correct ground and start again. This same logic must apply to grey area’s in society. Instead of dwelling on the grey we must look at the black and white. The obvious in wrong and right. I find it facinating that we somehow think we cannot take a step backward in time to correct an issue. Its done everywhere in the world by logic daily.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I pretty sure all individuals will ultimately agree with what there faith has deemed to be the correct thinking with abortion.

Nonetheless with the issue being legislating morality and the fact that there is seperation of church of state, then the issue becomes not what an individual faiths deem right or wrong.

The fact remains the we as a civil society must conclude that the abortion issue has been allowed to escalate to the point of immoral. Their is no moral thinking involved in this anymore when the very essense of it appeals to the immoral. How could this be Right or Moral?

This thinking is so far over the edge now, that any thinking can be rationalized now including world war and mass murder. Everything Hitler did was also legal. Did that make his thinking Moral and Right?
Click to expand...
Yes, thinking that abortion should be used as birth control is over the edge. So is saying that the lives of women who would not live through a full term pregnancy are not significant, or important, or should be forfeited is more than callous or inexcusable. It’s religious zealotry at one of it’s most dangerous phases. The point at which your religious faith or mine causes pain, suffering and misery for others is the point at which religion is no longer a benefit to humankind and becomes an affront to God. At let me be clear - there have been many times when religion has done just that, and it does it to this very day wherever it can get away with it. This is why there is separation of church and state.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
This compounds the issue. What is OK in one country such as the US, then becomes used as the example to promote that thinking in another. Very unfortunate with abortion.

No doubt there are many ways to view this.

God Bless, Gary
 
This is why I conflict in my own mind on what is the correct path to take to obtain an achievable goal.

Being Catholic we are accute to the thinking of the church. But I often wonder is this the path to obtain any real success?

I also understand the thinking of upholding extreme’s to fall somewhere in-between. Yet in the case with abortion the argument in emergency medicine is very valid and realistic. The risk then becomes losing all the way around the board to appeal to the small percentage in emergency situations or rare situation. I see the 85% which is immoral in the use of abortion as the point of victory for the greater good. I think its very obtainable to win at that point. Whats the good, right, moral agrument for the 85%? I just can’t see it.

God Bless, Gary
 
z0wb13 said:
… why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith? …
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that someone’s concept of right and wrong is going to be forced on society. That’s what leaders do, and that’s why you vote for candidate “A” instead of “B” … because you want his programs legislated instead, and you do this for your own personal religious reasons, be they anywhere in the religious spectrum, from atheism to the most rabid fundamentalism.

I have seen many discussions on “legislating morality” and have never encountered one in which “morality” was defined, and this one appears no different.
 
Sufjon said:
Gary, abortion shouldn’t be a means of birth control, but to say that a woman should by law have to die in order to go full term is barbaric, repulsive, and probably could be legally deemed to be murder in itself. This is why I am so glad that there is separation of church and state so that religious zealotry can no longer harm people in the real world.

Your friend
Sufjon
Click to expand...
I will confront the ‘health of the mother’ issue with you, although it is extremely rare compared to the total number of pregnancies. The Catholic Church doesn’t say the mother must die rather than risk the pre-born child’s life. This was the situation at the ‘Catholic’ hospital in Arizona from last year. It is all a matter of intent. The mother may have died, but she may have been okay. The decision was made to go in and abort the pregnancy. That is wrong - no justification at all.

Now, imagine a mother in distress who again has the likelihood of dying. The doctor’s find the issue, but treating the issue will likely (or even certainly) result in the loss of the child. The doctors perform the primary procedure, and as an unintended/secondary result, the child dies. This is totally justifiable.

You see, it is all a matter of intent. If the intent is to abort the pregnancy, it is murder. However, if the intent is to treat the mother, and as a result of the treatment the child dies, than there is no sin.
 
Holly3278 said:
Are the LDS truly pro-life though? Even the LDS’ website admits to the fact that LDS leaders have stated that “…some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” Therefore, I don’t hardly think you can call the LDS church pro-life. Even most Evangelical Christians condemn abortion in the cases of rape and incest so they are more pro-life than the LDS church is. So yeah, how can you truly say that the LDS are pro-life when they allow abortions in such “exceptional circumstances”? The fact is, abortion is wrong, even in those circumstances. Murder doesn’t automatically become something that isn’t murder just because the circumstances are different.
Click to expand...
Holly, the difference here is the doctrine on when the Spirit enters the Body. Cells are not spiritual beings until the spirit enters it.

In Catholic doctrine - the spirit is created. Therefore, it is created at conception.
In LDS doctrine - the spirit is eternal (it exists before mortality). It enters the body sometime between conception and birth.

Therefore, the LDS stance on terminating a pregnancy does not solely rest on the termination of spiritual life. It also rests on the sanctity of procreation. So that when a woman is forcibly made pregnant through rape, the sanctity of procreation is already defiled. As God’s laws are built on the foundation of Free Will, it is then understood that a spirit may not enter a fetus created by force. Also, God’s laws are built on the foundation of Spiritual Life, so that it is then understood that a spirit may not enter a fetus that is robbing the mother of her own spiritual life… etc.

In any of these special circumstances, terminating a pregnancy is not done just because the woman is raped/the woman’s life is in danger/etc. etc. without the appeal to God through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with the involvement of priesthood authority.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Its a weak argument when we talk new-born/mother and critical birth situations. The fact is those are “very” rare and abortion has become the mean’s of Birth Control country wide and is an abomination. So lets cut to the chase and get to the point.

Heroin is legal for medical use in many countrys, but they are not handing it out Planned Herion centers throughtout the world thus giving it a the pubilc nod.

Doesn’t much matter what you think about when the baby was actually conceived, be already by God as in the LDS thinking or during the first/last trimester. The problem is we have came an empase where what was once used as a medical procedure in extremely rare situations.

Its now used as a convienent means of correcting a problem/mistake made by an adult? Or by kids who decided it was OK to act out their immoral, sexual, inadequate, mickey mouse feelings. Used by prostitutes and escorts to promote their negative lifestyle. And those insane choices result in a abomination straight out of hell. Those who chose to interact in a promiscuous lifestyle or allow these feeling’s to control their better thinking are simply responsible for their mistakes.

When we reach a point when people understand that for every play-day there’s a pay-day, then they won’t be so quick to act off their feelings and will begin to think the process through and see the end result.

The thought of “Oh well I’ll just have an abortion” has become as common as “Oh well I’ll have a Bic Mac for lunch”. Another issue which compounds the problem is a large majority of those who quickly make this choice also then burden the country with their therapy, to now deal with the newly created feelings. Which are not mickey mouse and take a great deal of work to come to terms with.

We’ve gone way over the edge of rational thinking and its not a religious issue at all, I have little concern what your faith thinks or doesn’t. The bottom line is its wrong and we’ve taken a procedure which may used in a positive sense and turned it into an abomination, and thats the Truth regardless of the majority or your faith accepting it or not, it still remains the Truth.

Now, as we take “EMERGENY MEDICAL” off the tabel who thinks now this is right thing to uphold and shoud be legalized morality?

Weak arguments to say the least, to promote insanity.

God Bless, Gary
Click to expand...
Based on your argument, I hope you’re also against guns, because there are plenty of “wackos” who find ways of getting hold of these instruments of death and harming people. And you should also be against the sale of alcohol: kids and adults get drunk, get behind the wheel, and kill others as well as themselves. Not premeditated murder, rather vehicular homicide, but maiming and killing nonetheless. Are you against the sale of guns and alcohol as well? You see where I’m going: outlawing abortion completely, as outlawing the purchase of guns and alcohol, penalizes those who act responsibly. I’m not at all sure we want to have laws that ban certain things based on their potential or real misuse. That would mean the abusers and criminals are in effect controlling our legal system and limiting our rights as law-abiding citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top