They are not red herrings. Finite tells us that he is against abortion (and I’m pretty sure he is against infanticide and honour killings too). I take it he sees something wrong in those acts. I have simply asked HIM to explain whether he would decline to vote against a law permitting infanticide given his said he would do so in respect of abortion. The extent of religions supporting abortion, infanticide or honour killings is the red herring.
There are two holes in your argument.
A man with a knife kills a child in its mother’s womb.
No. I’m talking about differences in major religions (Islam, Judaism, Buddhists, probably some groups of Protestants) where they have different beliefs as to when a fetus becomes a human being. These beliefs have nothing to do with a Supreme Court decision.
Here you are getting close to the problem: at what point in the continuum do you pass a law enforcing the majority’s morality on a minority? For example, the US would not allow Utah to become a state unless Mormons renounced polygamy. We still have laws against taking multiple wives (but, interestingly, not against multiple husbands!) and yet there is a minority out there with multiple wives. There were even TV shows about it–“Sister Wives” and “Big Love.” We also have laws against sex with minors, making it statutory rape. Yet there are some people out there who think it’s OK. But in these cases the majority enforced their morality by passing laws (whether they’re enforced or not is another question).
No, science determines the point when a new human being is created. You are confusing this with personhood.
And the polls also show that almost of 80% of Americans want restrictions on abortions - something -something most Democrat candidates oppose.
Again, what a human being is is settled science. Personhood is where people disagree.
Yes, in those cases where harm is done to another. You don’t like the mercy killing example so let’s use an example that doesn’t involve killing. In the US, we have laws against marital rape and statutory rape. Many individuals and religions profess that spouses have a right to each others bodies and/or that people can consent to sex if under 17 years of age. We have those laws because we believe that without them, harm will befall others.
As you point out, Hamtramck has just done just that. It is impossible to have a set of laws that satisfies all religions. Just because your religion condones the killing of the unborn doesn’t mean we have to keep that legal. And we certainly don’t have to support politicians who want to make it even easier, cheaper and more dangerous to do.
I think you confusing “life” with “human being.” I’m not sure what you mean by “personhood.” I don’t think science can define what a human being is. Religion can.
I agree, but note that these laws have changed over time. My point is that yes, majorities have enforced their own morality–but, as you say, only to stop harm from befalling others, and only when there is general consensus. The very fact that the country is constantly debating pro-choice vs. pro-life shows that there is no consensus.
Perhaps. But I still wish those who are fanatical about this would take a hard look at their logic and realize that it opens the door to other groups to pass or enforce laws that discriminate against Christians / Catholics., and allows them to justify enforcing their own version of morality against Christians / Catholics.
Seriously? Are you saying my offspring are not certainly human?
I think there is a relatively small number of vocal people on both sides, and most everyone else just kind of goes along with “whatever.”
The term ‘pro life’ insinuates that those who support the right of women to make the decision themself are ‘pro abortion’.
That expression is hardly ever heard…so I’d agree with you. The usual “alternative” to pro-life is “pro-choice” - which expresses a view that the mother’s (parents’) right to choose whether her baby lives or dies is supreme, and thus outranks the baby’s right to be allowed to live.
You’re not the only atheist who is, and Christopher Hitchens was anti -abortion.
Faulty logic.
Hillary supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. She has said she wants abortion to be very rare, but safe and legal. And I believe she does want it to be rare, as she has dedicated her life to helping families, women, and children – the carrot approach to reducing abortion rather than the legalistic stick.
I consider climate change and other serious environmental problems that are killing and threaten to annihilate a large portion of God’s creation and humanity to be a very grave reason not to vote for Trump (who has connections with the fossil fuel industry and denies climate change). In fact, I consider climate change to be the mother of pro-life issues,
That is why I am against Hillary, I oppose abortion, especially the late term ones, where the child is already born except for the umbilical cord being attached, and then she is brutally murdered. Hillary supports a woman’s right to choose a late term abortion.
No, that is not pro-life, so faced with the murder of millions of unborn children in their mothers wombs, you will go plant a tree and try to justify to yourself that you’ve saved more lives? Well, hope you enjoy it while it lasts, the world is perishing regardless of your silly and futile climate change efforts. You should have been caring more for your fellow man, not the environment to benefit yourself at the expense of others.
What does that mean “to support the woman’s choice” ? Is it a statement about what you believe is the morally good act? Is it a statement about who has the greater right (mother or child)? Or is it a statement about the compassion you’d extend to a woman - regardless of her choice - in such a situation?
Think of God’s creation as sort of a womb that nourishes and feeds us and keeps us alive. Consider the environment as the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the climate in which we produce our food, the chemicals and toxins that permeate our bodies, the raw materials with which we make our products and building buildings.
Think of the actual human being created in the image and likeness of God, eternal and irreplaceable, intentionally killed through every procured abortion, than it will be easier to see how folly your comment was.
Well… what can I say, other than I hope you enjoy your climate, you sure earned it, especially with the blood of millions of innocents!
