View Full Version : Why does someone have a right not to pay for abortion coverage?
There's no basis for the belief than an embryo is a human life, other than religious fundamentalism, which of course is less about concern for life (given the the killing of children by the Abrahamic God in the OT) and more about creating a theocratic system of control.
Under the US Constitution the federal government has the power to spend to promote general welfare, so assuming that healthcare coverage is provided by the govt (which is a separate issue of debate) there's really no constitutional basis for not wishing to pay for abortions - just an issue of "I don't like it".
A Jehovah's witness may as well object to paying toward healthcare coverage on the basis that it covers blood transfusions, or a scientologist may object toward coverage of psychiatric care, but there's no Constitutional basis for that either.
SO IMO I don't see why those who blindly object to this don't just solve the problem by moving to Saudi Arabia or Iran - because t the claims I hear along the lines of "rights" being denied by including abortion coverage in govt healthcare programs are really just pissing in the wind.
I'm going to ignore (for the moment) the wildly pejorative digressions about what people's "real" reasons for their beliefs are, as well as the blatant use of rhetorical flourishes like "blindly," and just answer the core question.
The Constitutional argument comes from the fact that Congress is allowed to make law. And in 1993 they made a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA requires that, when the state's interests conflict with religious beliefs, the government has to prove two things. First, that the interest is compelling enough to take precedence (debatable, in this case), and second, that it is pursuing that interest in the way that places the smallest possible burden on those practices (not even close, in this case).
You may or may not like this law (gee, I wonder which), but there's your basis.
I'm going to ignore (for the moment) the wildly pejorative digressions about what people's "real" reasons for their beliefs are, as well as the blatant use of rhetorical flourishes like "blindly," and just answer the core question.
The Constitutional argument comes from the fact that Congress is allowed to make law. And in 1993 they made a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA requires that, when the state's interests conflict with religious beliefs, the government has to prove two things. First, that the interest is compelling enough to take precedence (debatable, in this case), and second, that it is pursuing that interest in the way that places the smallest possible burden on those practices (not even close, in this case).
You may or may not like this law (gee, I wonder which), but there's your basis.
I'd say that it'd be on those opposed to substantiate that it is a core tenant of their religion as well. Seeing as it's never mentioned specifically in Bible (or the Koran) I'd say they'd be hard pressed to prove that.
And on the same note - the result of giving special exemptions to groups for "religious reasons" is really another form of discrimination in favor of those people. This is why I'm against the recognition of special privilege for anyone who declares their belief a "religious" belief (while a person declaring a similar belief, but which is "secular" would not have those privileges).
The 1st Amendment was designed to prevent discrimination against groups based on their religious beliefs - not to give special privileges to religious people which are denied to others.
Since all who pay toward healthcare (not just Christians for example) would be equally contributing toward abortion coverage - I'd say there's no basis for a religious person to claim special discrimination because of their religion.
I'm going to ignore (for the moment) the wildly pejorative digressions about what people's "real" reasons for their beliefs are
This is the only reason which holds any consistency when pressed. For example many who claim to believe "abortion is murder" say they still believe it should be legal as long as the mother pays for it herself.
However they would not likely say they believe hiring a hitman to murder your spouse should be legal (even as long as the hitman is paid with one's own money) - so this shows that they don't really believe it's murder - they're just subscribing to rhetoric - much like a PETA protestor screaming "meat is murder is".
I can say "I believe I'm Superman", but if I refuse to jump off a skyscraper and fly away when pressed that shows I don't really believe it - actions over words.
I'd say that it'd be on those opposed to substantiate that it is a core tenant of their religion as well. Seeing as it's never mentioned specifically in Bible (or the Koran) I'd say they'd be hard pressed to prove that.
No, it isn't on them to prove that it's a core tenant of their religion: as I said, the law requires that the government enact policy which places the least possible burden on them. That's how the burden of proof is laid out, not the other way around.
They wouldn't be hard pressed to prove it, either, even if the law were otherwise: The Bible uses the same word for a conceived child as it does for a born one, and makes reference to God knowing people before their birth, as well. There really aren't any reasonable interpretations of these verses that lead to any other conclusion.
And on the same note - the result of giving special exemptions to groups for "religious reasons" is really another form of discrimination in favor of those people. This is why I'm against the recognition of special privilege for anyone who declares their belief a "religious" belief (while a person declaring a similar belief, but which is "secular" would not have those privileges).
The 1st Amendment was designed to prevent discrimination against groups based on their religious beliefs - not to give special privileges to religious people which are denied to others.
This just flat out doesn't make sense. The "privilege" is not doing a thing they don't want to do. And by definition, the only people who get this "privilege" are people who don't object to doing it in the first place. Ergo, they're not missing out on anything they want, and are not harmed by others not having to do it.
Since all who pay toward healthcare (not just Christians for example) would be equally contributing toward abortion coverage - I'd say there's no basis for a religious person to claim special discrimination because of their religion.
Huh? The religious exemption does not reduce a religious person's taxes correspondingly. It simply absolves them from having to be directly involved in the purchase. It's a simple layer of abstraction, much like the one that doesn't force anti-war people to literally buy rifles.
No, it isn't on them to prove that it's a core tenant of their religion: as I said, the law requires that the government enact policy which places the least possible burden on them. That's how the burden of proof is laid out, not the other way around.
They wouldn't be hard pressed to prove it, either, even if the law were otherwise: The Bible uses the same word for a conceived child as it does for a born one, and makes reference to God knowing people before their birth, as well. There really aren't any reasonable interpretations of these verses that lead to any other conclusion.
I think a better interpretation is that God designed the spiritual being (aka the "soul"), not necessarily the body.
In fact I don't the latter belief could be true unless a person believes in predestination - because what if a certain man and woman never ended up meeting and having a child? Would that person just "not exist"? Or would they be born into another body with a different set of genetics?
Most Christians don't believe in predestination, so this causes conflict. Because unless all child births are pre-destined - then how could God have designed a specific physical body in the womb? (Not to mention the other cans of worms that predestination opens).
This just flat out doesn't make sense. The "privilege" is not doing a thing they don't want to do. And by definition, the only people who get this "privilege" are people who don't object to doing it in the first place. Ergo, they're not missing out on anything they want, and are not harmed by others not having to do it.
Huh? The religious exemption does not reduce a religious person's taxes correspondingly. It simply absolves them from having to be directly involved in the purchase. It's a simple layer of abstraction, much like the one that doesn't force anti-war people to literally buy rifles.
I don't believe there shouldn't be any distinction a "religious" belief and a "belief" - I believe that making a distinction is a Constitutional violation, since it is granting special privileges to people on the grounds that their belief is "religious" as opposed to "secular".
Based on what you've shared it sounds like repealing the RFRA is the first step in the right direction - it sounds like it's not about really "religious freedom" seeing as it really amounts to "special privileges" for the religious
It's a simple layer of abstraction, much like the one that doesn't force anti-war people to literally buy rifles
Even if they were I don't see how they'd have any constitutional basis for claiming "discrimination against their beliefs" - if all people were paying toward rifles equally.
I think a better interpretation is that God designed the spiritual being (aka the "soul"), not necessarily the body.
Yes, there's never any shortage of atheists telling religious people what a better interpretation of their religion is, even though they've usually spent considerably less time with the source text. Case in point:
In fact I don't the latter belief could be true unless a person believes in predestination - because what if a certain man and woman never ended up meeting and having a child? Would that person just "not exist"? Or would they be born into another body with a different set of genetics?
The passages I referenced are about knowing someone in the womb, so none of the complications about predestination apply.
There shouldn't be any distinction a "religious" belief and a "belief" - I believe that making a distinction is a Constitutional violation, since it is granting special privileges to people on the grounds that their belief is "religious" as opposed to "secular".
This is completely wrong. The Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of religion in a way it doesn't for other beliefs. So no, it's not a Constitutional violation at all. I'm afraid you'll have to choose between being pro-Constitution and anti-religious, because on this point they're in direct conflict.
Based on what you've shared it sounds like repealing the RFRA is the first step in the right direction - since of course it sounds like it's not about "religious freedom", it's about "special freedoms" for our (and only our) religion.
This just flat out doesn't make sense, for the reason I mentioned earlier: this is a freedom from having to do something, not a privilege that confers any benefit over others. If you want to claim otherwise, by all means, please explain to me what tangible advantage a religious person gains over a non-religious person through this exemption.
Even if they were I don't see how they'd have any constitutional basis for claiming "discrimination against their beliefs" - if all people were paying toward rifles equally.
Being applied equally doesn't preclude a law from being discriminatory; they're discriminatory if they have inevitably unequal effects. If you passed a law saying everyone had to eat pork, everyone would be subject to that law equally, too, but it would still be discrimination against Judaism.
Yes, there's never any shortage of atheists telling religious people what a better interpretation of their religion is, even though they've usually spent considerably less time with the source text. Case in point:
By that logic a Holocaust denier must know more about the Holocaust than the average Joe?
And I'm not comparing Christians to Holocaust deniers, I'm just illustrating why you're making an argument from authority fallacy.
The passages I referenced are about knowing someone in the womb, so none of the complications about predestination apply.
But it's known that a person's body is determined by the parents' genetics - so without predestination - Bob might end up marrying Linda instead of Betty - resulting in a baby with a different genetic makeup than if he'd married Betty.
So how could the physical body have been designed by God in the womb unless all child birth is predestined?
This is completely wrong. The Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of religion in a way it doesn't for other beliefs. So no, it's not a Constitutional violation at all. I'm afraid you'll have to choose between being pro-Constitution and anti-religious, because on this point they're in direct conflict.
Not that I'm aware of no - the 1st Amendment states that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
But obviously that would not superseded existing laws. The Boston Bomber cannot get away with murder by claiming his Islamic belief requires him to kill the infidels for example.
So as long as the law is applied evenly across the board, the religious can't claim "discrimination" just because they don't get an exemption to the law which applies to everyone else.
If a certain religion was being singled out in a way which others were not then that would be a violation.
This just flat out doesn't make sense, for the reason I mentioned earlier: this is a freedom from having to do something, not a privilege that confers any benefit over others. If you want to claim otherwise, by all means, please explain to me what tangible advantage a religious person gains over a non-religious person through this exemption.
Being applied equally doesn't preclude a law from being discriminatory; they're discriminatory if they have inevitably unequal effects.
If you passed a law saying everyone had to eat pork, everyone would be subject to that law equally, too, but it would still be discrimination against Judaism.
This article explains it pretty well:
http://www.thenation.com/article/180832/why-its-time-repeal-religious-freedom-restoration-act
And no while that would be a silly law, without any constitutional grounds that I know of - it wouldn't be discrimination against Judaism. Any more than requiring parents to provide sick children with medical care would be "discrimination" against faith healers, or not allowing polygamous marriage would be discrimination against Mormons or Muslims.
Measuring "effects" sounds like a very poor way of determining discrimination and it's open to too diverse interpretation.
For example a person could argue that ending segregation "discriminates" against whites if crime rates were higher in multiracial neighborhoods than in whites only neighborhoods.
By that logic a Holocaust denier must know more about the Holocaust than the average Joe?
And I'm not comparing Christians to Holocaust deniers, I'm just illustrating why you're making an argument from authority fallacy.
It'd be an argument from authority if I gave your lack of scriptural knowledge as the reason you must be wrong, but I didn't.
But it's known that a person's body is determined by the parents' genetics - so without predestination - Bob might end up marrying Linda instead of Betty - resulting in a baby with a different genetic makeup than if he'd married Betty.
So how could the physical body have been designed by God in the womb unless all child birth is predestined?
Man, where to start?
First, if it's happening in the womb, then it's already post-conception, and the entire genetic code is present at conception. Second, the word is "knit," not "designed," which doesn't have the same connotation of choice. Third, lots of people do believe in predestination, or at least in a form of compatibilism. And whatever other questions arise from that extend beyond the issue of religious liberty.
Not that I'm aware of no - the 1st Amendment states that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Yes, and it does not extend this protection to the free exercise of all other beliefs. Therefore, the Constitution is at odds with your claim that there should be "no distinction" between religious beliefs and secular beliefs.
But obviously that would not superseded existing laws. The Boston Bomber cannot get away with murder by claiming his Islamic belief requires him to kill the infidels for example.
It's the other way around: laws can't supersede the Constitution. Religious freedom can't supersede other basic rights, like the right to life. But the right to mandated federal health care is not a basic right, so it doesn't get to run roughshod over religion.
And no while that would be a silly law, without any constitutional grounds that I know of - it wouldn't be discrimination against Judaism. Any more than requiring parents to provide sick children with medical care would be "discrimination" against faith healers, or not allowing polygamous marriage would be discrimination against Mormons or Muslims.
Measuring "effects" sounds like a very poor way of determining discrimination and it's open to too diverse interpretation.
So? Sometimes questions are open to diverse interpretations. There's no better definition; the one you describe imposes no meaningful restriction at all. It'd be quite easy to snuff out virtually all religious expression with laws that still technically apply to everybody equally. And any definition of a "discriminatory" law that could still allow that is useless.
First, if it's happening in the womb, then it's already post-conception, and the entire genetic code is present at conception. Second, the word is "knit," not "designed," which doesn't have the same connotation of choice. Third, lots of people do believe in predestination, or at least in a form of compatibilism. And whatever other questions arise from that extend beyond the issue of religious liberty.
But the genetic code is created by the genetic makeup of both parents, it doesn't just come into existence by "magic" - so the only way there could be a specific genetic code selected for a child is if all childbirths are predestined.
Yes, and it does not extend this protection to the free exercise of all other beliefs. Therefore, the Constitution is at odds with your claim that there should be "no distinction" between religious beliefs and secular beliefs.
It's the other way around: laws can't supersede the Constitution. Religious freedom can't supersede other basic rights, like the right to life. But the right to mandated federal health care is not a basic right, so it doesn't get to run roughshod over religion.
I don't believe this is the intent of the 1st Amendment at all. The intent was to prevent certain religious from being prohibited from worshiping or expressing their faiths - not to give special legal privileges to groups under the guise of "religious freedom".
So secular laws which "happen" to affect people with specific religious beliefs can't rightfully be called "religious discrimination" - simply because they affect religious people indirectly. Only laws specifically targeting religious people or a certain religion (ex. banning a specific religion, or declaring a certain religion the official religion) are true discrimination.
So? Sometimes questions are open to diverse interpretations. There's no better definition; the one you describe imposes no meaningful restriction at all. It'd be quite easy to snuff out virtually all religious expression with laws that still technically apply to everybody equally. And any definition of a "discriminatory" law that could still allow that is useless.
Again that leaves open a can of worms to a multitude of discrimination in favor of religion. Is not allowing polygamous marriage discrimination against Mormons and Muslims? Should marijuana use be legal for Rastafarians (but not anyone else)?
A much simpler solution to the problem is for the law to apply equally to all.
Plus your theory that this could be used to effectively eliminate all religious expression is a slippery slope.
But the genetic code is created by the genetic makeup of both parents, it doesn't just come into existence by "magic" - so the only way there could be a specific genetic code selected for a child is if all childbirths are predestined.
What passage are you talking about? I cited one in particular (from Psalms), and it makes no mention of anything prior to conception. Now it sounds like you're talking about something else entirely (without ever specifying what it is), or else mashing several together.
Regardless, I gave several answers, and you seem to just be ignoring the others. Some people do believe in predestination, and others believe in some form of compatibilism, both of which resolve this. And religious liberty is not contingent on a theological cross-examination, anyway, so this has nothing to do with the topic.
I don't believe this is the intent of the 1st Amendment at all. The intent was to prevent certain religious from being prohibited from worshiping or expressing their faiths - not to give special legal privileges to groups under the guise of "religious freedom".
You keep saying "special legal privileges," but you haven't explained what they actually are. There is no privilege; just the freedom to not do something, which in no way harms anyone else, except those petty enough to have distaste for the mere act of religious expression. Earlier, I challenged you to produce a tangible advantage that this exemption confers on believers. You didn't give one. If you can't, then this claim has no basis.
Also, you haven't in any way responded to what I said about the contradiction. You can't simultaneously cite the Constitution and claim that there should be no distinction between religious beliefs and secular ones, because the Constitutions makes a point to single religious beliefs out for special protection above and beyond others. So which is it gonna be?
So secular laws which "happen" to affect people with specific religious beliefs can't rightfully be called "religious discrimination" - simply because they affect religious people indirectly. Only laws specifically targeting religious people or a certain religion (ex. banning a specific religion, or declaring a certain religion the official religion) are true discrimination.
This is awfully naive. If someone wanted to impede religious expression, they wouldn't do so explicitly, by name. They would simply impede the actions associated with it.
I also don't know what "true discrimination" is. But if this whole argument just boils down to you telling me how you, personally, use the word "discrimination," then there's little point in it.
A much simpler solution to the problem is for the law to apply equally to all.
A much simpler solution is not forcing people to buy health care, so that everyone can buy or not buy what they want and not get dragged into other people's moral decisions.
And what is simplest is not what is necessarily fairest, or best.
What passage are you talking about? I cited one in particular (from Psalms), and it makes no mention of anything prior to conception. Now it sounds like you're talking about something else entirely (without ever specifying what it is), or else mashing several together.
Regardless, I gave several answers, and you seem to just be ignoring the others. Some people do believe in predestination, and others believe in some form of compatibilism, both of which resolve this. And religious liberty is not contingent on a theological cross-examination, anyway, so this has nothing to do with the topic.
You keep saying "special legal privileges," but you haven't explained what they actually are. There is no privilege; just the freedom to not do something, which in no way harms anyone else, except those petty enough to have distaste for the mere act of religious expression. Earlier, I challenged you to produce a tangible advantage that this exemption confers on believers. You didn't give one. If you can't, then this claim has no basis.
Also, you haven't in any way responded to what I said about the contradiction. You can't simultaneously cite the Constitution and claim that there should be no distinction between religious beliefs and secular ones, because the Constitutions makes a point to single religious beliefs out for special protection above and beyond others. So which is it gonna be?
This is awfully naive. If someone wanted to impede religious expression, they wouldn't do so explicitly, by name. They would simply impede the actions associated with it.
I also don't know what "true discrimination" is. But if this whole argument just boils down to you telling me how you, personally, use the word "discrimination," then there's little point in it.
I'd say that anything involving the direct practicing of faith - such as attending churches, reading the Bible, or professing ones faith in public is Constitutionally protected - anything beyond that is a distortion of the 1st Amendment's proper intent - which was to protect certain religions from being banned or effectively banned, not give them "loopholes" to get around the same laws which affect everyone else.
The Founders themselves did not think highly of the religious fundamentalists of their day and age, so I don't believe their intent was some excessive veneration of "religious expression" - as much as it was a protection of freedoms which were frequently denied in Europe (whether by Catholics or Protestants).
A much simpler solution is not forcing people to buy health care, so that everyone can buy or not buy what they want and not get dragged into other people's moral decisions.
And what is simplest is not what is necessarily fairest, or best.
Subsidized healthcare is the simpler solution - the Affordable Care Act is really just putting a patch on a sinking ship - but that's a separate issue.
Likewise though I see no constitutional right for religions individual to be exempt from paying toward taxpayer-funded abortions - this doesn't impede their ability to practice their religion in any way.
Many religious are against war (Quakers for example), but this doesn't grant them an exemption toward paying taxes to the military. (And while you mentioned life being a basic right in your response to my radical Muslim analogy - there is no automatic right to military defense, though the Federal government has the right to maintain a military).
So the end result of your interpretation results in it being unevenly applied and used toward advancing privileges for certain religions (particularly evangelicals and the religious right) while ignoring others.
Chardee MacDennis
12-02-14, 02:16 AM
I've just glanced at this, but it looks like one person is getting schooled big time.
I've just glanced at this, but it looks like one person is getting schooled big time.
Apparently the issue hinges on how the RFRA is interpreted. So repealing it would be the best solution. This article does a pretty good job explaining with the RFRA is a dangerous slippery slope.
Why it's time to repeal the RFRA (http://www.thenation.com/article/180832/why-its-time-repeal-religious-freedom-restoration-act)
I'd say that anything involving the direct practicing of faith - such as attending churches, reading the Bible, or professing ones faith in public is Constitutionally protected - anything beyond that is a distortion of the 1st Amendment's proper intent - which was to protect certain religions from being banned or effectively banned, not give them "loopholes" to get around the same laws which affect everyone else.
Explain the difference between a law which forces someone to violate their religious beliefs and a law that "effectively bans" religion. Is it a matter of degree? Be specific.
The Founders themselves did not think highly of the religious fundamentalists of their day and age, so I don't believe their intent was some excessive veneration of "religious expression" - as much as it was a protection of freedoms which were frequently denied in Europe (whether by Catholics or Protestants).
If you're referencing the Founders' intent as an argument, then doesn't that make you an Originalist? Because if so, that means you'd pretty much have to detest the ACA and its obvious distortion of the Commerce Clause. And if you want to go this route, there's no doubt that they'd be horrified at the prospect of people being forced to pay for other people's abortions. There's no angle from which this argument is remotely consistent with your position.
Likewise though I see no constitutional right for religions individual to be exempt from paying toward taxpayer-funded abortions
It's encompassed by the right to religious freedom, which is the very first right listed in the very first Amendment. That's how important it was, and is.
At some point you're going to have to reconcile your veneration of the Constitution (which is great) and your hatred of religion (which is crude). Because the Constitution takes a much higher view of it than you do, and you can't rationally hold both views simultaneously.
this doesn't impede their ability to practice their religion in any way.
Of course it does: they believe their religion forbids the practice, so they don't want to be complicit in it.
Many religious are against war (Quakers for example), but this doesn't grant them an exemption toward paying taxes to the military.
And the religious exemption isn't an exemption towards paying taxes, either, which I pointed out earlier. It's an exemption towards having to be directly involved in the transaction.
At this point my Spidey sense is starting to tingle. You've never heard of the RFRA, you somehow think religious people are getting tax breaks on this issue, and you keep saying "abortion" even though the recent Supreme Court case was actually about contraception. Serious question: do you actually know anything at all about this? Because you probably should if you're going to have all these strong opinions.
Unless, of course, your question wasn't a real question at all, but just an excuse to complain loudly about religious people. :suspicious:
So the end result of your interpretation results in it being unevenly applied and used toward advancing privileges for certain religions (particularly evangelicals and the religious right) while ignoring others.
It doesn't ignore them--they're free to claim the same exemption, which is proof that the word "privilege" is erroneous.
I think the thing you're missing is that everyone enjoys freedom of religion whether they're religious or not, in the same way everyone enjoys freedom of speech even if they choose not to speak. It's not an unfair advantage that some people exercise some rights more than others, because the other people still have those rights. It's not the application that's uneven, it's the adoption of religious views that is.
Apparently the issue hinges on how the RFRA is interpreted. So repealing it would be the best solution. This article does a pretty good job explaining with the RFRA is a dangerous slippery slope.
Why it's time to repeal the RFRA (http://www.thenation.com/article/180832/why-its-time-repeal-religious-freedom-restoration-act)
It really doesn't do a good job at all, this is just "hey, here's an editorial that agrees with me." Congratulations on that. I also am familiar with The Google.
The slippery slope argument (hey, isn't that a fallacy, too?) is weird, for several reasons. For one, it seems to apply to the entire concept of religious freedom, not just this one law. For another, the RFRA was passed 21 years ago and we've seen basically zero evidence of this happening before. The only reason we're talking about it now is because laws are encroaching on religion, not the other way around. The more government mandates things, the more you force people to be complicit in things they don't agree with. The solution is not to abolish individual religious protections, but to stop using government to issue the mandates in the first place.
Here's the issue in a nutshell: these two things are bumping into one another because the law is increasing in scope, not because religious freedom is. Religious freedom is the same size it was before. And that's how you know who the real bully is here.
matt72582
12-02-14, 11:48 AM
I enjoyed reading the first two posts, but because I'm in a hurry I just want to say quickly (before I come back and read the rest)...
What if I said my religion allows me to use LSD and mushrooms? How popular of a religion does it have to be.. I think it's a lousy excuse, because people probably use it as a shield, rather than directly to their intuition.
I watched something good which is on openculture.org entitled "Do Communists Have Better Sex?" and it's a comparison of Eastern and Western Germany and their sexual education and habits. It's excellent really.
What if I said my religion allows me to use LSD and mushrooms? How popular of a religion does it have to be..
This is a bit of a straw man, because nobody's saying that religion should be an automatic blanket exemption to any law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act came about in response to a situation very similar to your question, in fact.
And this kind of hypothetical conveniently ignores the direction this issue is actually coming from. In your hypothetical, religion is expanding to demand exemption from longstanding law. But in reality, laws are expanding and demanding that religious liberty be curbed to accommodate them.
Besides, your rhetorical question applies to the entire idea of religious protections, not just this application of it. So if this if your reasoning, then you've got a problem with the Constitution itself.
matt72582
12-02-14, 12:48 PM
I believe Natives of America are exempt because of their religion, using peyote for example. What I'm saying is how certain religions are recognized, and how less popular ones won't be. I'm just curious how many it takes, or how popular it has to get to be recognized.
Here's the issue in a nutshell: these two things are bumping into one another because the law is increasing in scope, not because religious freedom is. Religious freedom is the same size it was before. And that's how you know who the real bully is here.
I'd be more helpful if you could provide hard examples of secular laws which are applicable to all, being used to specifically target religious people.
There are way more examples of religious individuals manipulating the legal system to impose their "morality" on others (not just throughout American history, but world history as a whole) - in some states for example, religious people have even been allowed to deny their children medical care for "religious reasons" (which would likely be criminal if done for any "secular" reason).
In fact if the 1st Commandment is taken literally, then it invalidates the 1st Amendment - so to a fundamentalist (whether they consciously realize it or not) it's actually required by their religion.to deny others freedom, and many of them therefore will make an effort to do this, while claiming to "support freedom" just to help their PR.
I believe Natives of America are exempt because of their religion, using peyote for example. What I'm saying is how certain religions are recognized, and how less popular ones won't be. I'm just curious how many it takes, or how popular it has to get to be recognized.
This is the can of worms I'm talking about. Can I invent my own religion tomorrow which requires the use of recreational drugs, then claim "religious discrimination" if I'm caught with contraband substances? It opens the gateway to people being allowed to circumvent nearly any law they want just by claiming a "religious" purpose for doing so.
I'd be more helpful if you could provide hard examples of secular laws which are applicable to all, being used to specifically target religious people.
Uh...the one this entire discussion is about? Unless you're making a distinction between laws that infringe on religious liberty and ones that "specifically target" it. In which case you've moved the goalposts with the phrasing of this question.
Something else that would be helpful: if you would start answering all the direct questions I keep asking, rather than retreating to generalizations.
in fact if the 1st Commandment is taken literally, then it invalidates the 1st Amendment
You're obviously going to have to explain this.
This is the can of worms I'm talking about. Can I invent my own religion tomorrow which requires the use of recreational drugs, then claim "religious discrimination" if I'm caught with contraband substances? It opens the gateway to people being allowed to circumvent nearly any law they want just by claiming a "religious" purpose for doing so.
And as I keep explaining, this objection applies to the entire concept of religious liberty. So it's been 240 years, and this hasn't opened a gateway, or a can of worms, or any other metaphor you want to use. Why not?
And since the entire concept of religious liberty is subject to the same criticism, you might as well admit that you disagree with the same Constitutions that you're trying to base your arguments on. You're practically said this already in claiming there should be "no distinction" between religious and secular beliefs. The only thing left is to acknowledge the contradiction and pick a side. I've pointed this out a few times now, and gotten no response.
Also, could you stop editing in additional arguments after you've posted something? :) There's no reason not to either a) hold off on posting until you're actually done or b) post a second time.
And as I keep explaining, this objection applies to the entire concept of religious liberty. So it's been 240 years, and this hasn't opened a gateway, or a can of worms, or any other metaphor you want to use. Why not?
And since the entire concept of religious liberty is subject to the same criticism, you might as well come out and say it: you disagree with the same Constitutions that you're trying to base your arguments on. You're practically said this already in claiming there should be "no distinction" between religious and secular beliefs. The only thing you haven't done is acknowledged the contradiction between this and your other views.
From a technical standpoint there is no difference - the only technical difference between a "religious" view and a ... "view" is that a religious view is based on the views of a man who claimed to speak on behalf of god.
If the Constitution had been drafted in the 21st Century instead of the 18th Century then ideally the Founders wouldn't have offered special protection to "religious" views, at least to the degree that's allowed this to be interpreted as "special privileges" specifically for religion - the problem is they were products of their day and age and religion was still a heavier influence on society, even though they were way ahead of their time. I also don't believe the Founders had a profound veneration for religion like you seem to believe, but that they were trying to counter religious oppression (which had been a huge problem in Europe for centuries - what with the Inquisition, the Reformation, etc) - they knew that religious people had a knack for trying using the state to deny others freedom, and this was their way of preventing that. (Sure you can bring up Mao and Stalin as well if you want, but they weren't around yet - and at that point in time Abrahamic religions had the biggest track record for imposing theocratic totalitarian government on people).
But regardless of that - the debate here is exactly at what point a law applicable to all is determined to be "encroaching" on religious freedom - according to you it doesn't have to single out religion, just adversely affect their ability to practice it? That's quite a grey area - and while you say there has been no can of worms, I disagree (I pointed out that state laws have allowed parents to deny children medical care for "religious reasons" as an example). I have other examples as well.
You're obviously going to have to explain this.
Worshiping other gods was a capital offense in the OT - so how can a law (1st Amendment) which protects the right to break God's law be compatible with a literal reading of the Bible? Much like how can legalizing gay marriage be compatible with the belief that homosexuality is sinful?
From a technical standpoint there is no difference - the only technical difference between a "religious" view and a ... "view" is that a religious view is based on the views of a man who claimed to speak on behalf of god.
First off, what is a "technical standpoint," and why is it relevant? You asked a legal question. And my question to you was not why you think there is no difference, but how you think you can reconcile that with citing the Constitution, which explicitly contradicts you on this point.
If the Constitution had been drafted in the 21st Century instead of the 18th Century then ideally the Founders wouldn't have offered special protection to "religious" views, at least to the degree that's allowed this to be interpreted as "special privileges" specifically for religion - the problem is they were products of their day and age and religion was still a heavier influence on society, even though they were way ahead of their time.
Except the entire point of a Constitution is that it establishes principles not easily changed by the passage of time. They knew this when they drafted it. They were specifically crafting a document meant to remain applicable in the midst of major cultural and technological changes. And it has.
And again, I ask: are you an Originalist, or not? Because in one part of the argument you reference the Founders' intent (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1213144#post1213144) (or what you claim was the Founders' intent), but here in another you disregard it because they were "products of their time." So which is it?
I also don't believe the Founders had a profound veneration for religion like you seem to believe, but that they were trying to counter religious oppression (which had been a huge problem in Europe for centuries - what with the Inquisition, the Reformation, etc) - they knew that religious people had a knack for trying using the state to deny others freedom, and this was their way of preventing that.
No, they knew religious states did this. You're looking at this on a religious/non-religious axis. But the axis they cared about was government/individual, which is why they established such strong individual protections for religion. Both parts of the freedom of religion clause reflect this.
But regardless of that - the debate here is exactly at what point a law applicable to all is determined to be "encroaching" on religious freedom - according to you it doesn't have to single out religion, just adversely affect their ability to practice it? That's quite a grey area
No more than any other basic right. At what point can you curtail free speech if it has the potential to endanger or slander others? Ruh-roh, a gray area! Clearly we need to scale back freedom of speech.
and while you say there has been no can of worms, I disagree (I pointed out that state laws have allowed parents to deny children medical care for "religious reasons" as an example). I have other examples as well.
Er, this isn't the argument you were making. Your hypothetical example had to do with people making up religions to skirt basic laws. And that simply hasn't happened--basically at all.
So, you're now making a different argument. Which I'm happy to answer anyway: far from being a "can of worms," what you're describing remains (mercifully) rare, and it's as much a question of parental rights as religious ones. There's no obvious line between reasonable discipline and child abuse, either, and courts still err on the side of letting parents make choices for their kids rather than intervening. Sometimes this allows abuse to take place. Do you therefore oppose parenthood and think parents should be held to the same legal standards as strangers? Do you think the state should be interfering far more in how people raise their children?
Religion isn't special in this regard; difficult questions and gray areas abound in all areas. You're just singling out religion because you have a strong personal disdain for it.
Worshiping other gods was a capital offense in the OT - so how can a law (1st Amendment) which protects the right to break God's law be compatible with a literal reading of the Bible? Much like how can legalizing gay marriage be compatible with the belief that homosexuality is sinful?
Is this a serious question? Religious belief is voluntary. Laws are not. Believing something to be wrong is not tantamount to believing it should be stopped by force. Pretty simple.
Also, why are you asking a question predicated on a literal reading? Virtually nobody reads it that way. So who is this argument meant to apply to? Some unnamed, hypothetical people who aren't in this thread and have no relationship to the topic?
Cobpyth
12-04-14, 07:42 PM
I didn't fully read through the whole thread yet, but let me just say this:
Why are people who don't just blindly approve of abortion always automatically labeled as religious fundamentalists?
I'm not bound to any religion (at all) and even I am morally skeptical of abortion (especially in certain situations). It's not just a religious matter. It's a humanistic philosophical debate, so simply stating that religion is incompatible with state is not enough to validate it, let alone the governmental funding of it.
Because vocalizing his dislike of religious people was the actual point of the thread.
I didn't fully read through the whole thread yet, but let me just say this:
Why are people who don't just blindly approve of abortion always automatically labeled as religious fundamentalists?
I'm not bound to any religion (at all) and even I am morally skeptical of abortion (especially in certain situations). It's not just a religious matter. It's a humanistic philosophical debate, so simply stating that religion is incompatible with state is not enough to validate it, let alone the governmental funding of it.
The most vocal opponents of abortion are religious fundamentalists - it's not required to be religious to oppose it, but I believe that most of the opposition to it is based on fundamentalist values - and it's possible for cultural views to transcend across different demographics regardless of where the view originated.
I used this analogy - there are anti-Semitic atheists, but many of the anti-Semitic stereotypes in the West originated in the early Catholic Church.
Fundamentalist cultures also place low value on human life and individuality as a whole (such as in Saudi Arabia (where crimes such as blasphemy or adultery can carry a death sentence)- yet a disproportionately high concern for the "unborn" - which adds to my view that the underlying opposition to abortion is about theocratic control, not value of human life or individuality.
In my view, seeing as an embryo does not have a brain - I see no good biological reason to oppose abortion - and the most consistent metric by which we value life is how highly on the evolutionary "tier" it is in terms of brain capability and awareness
Which is why a dog has more "value" than a mosquito, but a human has more "value" than a dog, etc.
Just as a point of information, the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which bans medicaid coverage of abortion, was found constitutional in 1980.
Cobpyth
12-05-14, 08:53 AM
The most vocal opponents of abortion are religious fundamentalists - it's not required to be religious to oppose it, but I believe that most of the opposition to it is based on fundamentalist values - and it's possible for cultural views to transcend across different demographics regardless of where the view originated.
Do you have data to back this up? And even if this was true, my point is still completely valid. It doesn't matter who the majority of "opposers" are.
Fundamentalist cultures also place low value on human life and individuality as a whole (such as in Saudi Arabia (where crimes such as blasphemy or adultery can carry a death sentence)- yet a disproportionately high concern for the "unborn" - which adds to my view that the underlying opposition to abortion is about theocratic control, not value of human life or individuality.
Again, this is completely irrelevant to this conversation. Abortion is not about fundamentalist cultures or even religions in general.
In my view, seeing as an embryo does not have a brain - I see no good biological reason to oppose abortion - and the most consistent metric by which we value life is how highly on the evolutionary "tier" it is in terms of brain capability and awareness
Euhm, I don't think this is a morally acceptable way of placing value on (developing) creatures. You're completely disregarding the extremely high potential that particular evolving being has.
By the way, I take it that you're opposed to abortions after the eighth week then? Because fetuses (which human beings in development are called after that period) do have brains from that phase of evolution.
Which is why a dog has more "value" than a mosquito, but a human has more "value" than a dog, etc.
So a 1 year old baby(or a 6 years old child for that matter) is worth less than a 70 years old man? The latter has a significantly larger brain capability and awareness, because human evolution is partly set ex-uterus (from 0 to 20 years old approximately).
I'm an atheist and I don't agree with abbortion being done outside the private sector, excluding of course the pregnancies that cause danger to the mother or to the baby and those who happen due to rape.
In my country, abbortion was legalized some years ago. What happened next in some cases was that abbortion turned to a contraception method, what is scaring and ridiculous at the same time.
Now, I do believe that a woman has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her body. And I am personally against abbortion but I don't wanna impose my beliefs to someone, so I don't say it should forbidden in every case, everywhere.
But I also believe that any action has consequences and why should I pay for another person's irracionality?
Just a few things here: The Hyde Amendment's constitutionality didn't involve religious claims and has a few exceptions like rape, incest, life of the mother; exemption from certain provisions of Obamacare was already given to religious institutions before the 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision which involved certain corporations, and a 2012 Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx) found that just about 15% of pro-lifers didn't identify with any religion.
I'm an atheist and I don't agree with abbortion being done outside the private sector, excluding of course the pregnancies that cause danger to the mother or to the baby and those who happen due to rape.
In my country, abbortion was legalized some years ago. What happened next in some cases was that abbortion turned to a contraception method, what is scaring and ridiculous at the same time.
How is that ridiculous? If it doesn't end a life (which I believe evidence shows that it does not), then what's the problem? If it does end a life, how can you personally justify wanting murder to be legal in the event that the "baby" was born of rape or incest? Should it also be legal when the baby is 2 years old.
I for one would sure support abortion as a "contraceptive" method over paying for the welfare of unplanned kids from ages 1-18 - we'd probably be paying fewer taxes in the long run anyway.
Now, I do believe that a woman has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her body.
If it's her body rather than a human life, then why do you find using abortion as birth control "scary" - who's she being irresponsible to? Allah?
And I am personally against abbortion but I don't wanna impose my beliefs to someone, so I don't say it should forbidden in every case, everywhere.
That's an inconsistent argument. Why are you against it? Do you feel it is murder? If so then how can you justify an exception for rape?
Or if you believe preventing murder is imposing your beliefs on others. Then why should it be illegal to hire a hitman to murder your spouse as long as the taxpayer isn't covering it.
But I also believe that any action has consequences and why should I pay for another person's irracionality?
I don't know why you "should" - but on the same note why "shouldn't" you? The Constitution doesn't give you a right to be exempt from paying for something just because "you don't like it". I'm sure many anti-war individuals dislike their money being used to fund military weapons development, but they have no specific "right" not to pay those taxes either.
If you feel you shouldn't then you're free to help elect politicians who share your view and will pass laws in your favor, but there's no obligation for others to base laws solely around what you like or don't like. So the "why should I argument" doesn't hold much water here.
Personally I don't feel strongly that abortion "should" be taxpayer subsidized (though I really wouldn't mind it at all if it was, because I think the benefits would far outweigh the costs) - but I find the objections which specifically target abortion coverage puzzling.
Oh, good, you ignored Cob's questions too. So it's not just me.
By the way, I take it that you're opposed to abortions after the eighth week then? Because fetuses (which human beings in development are called after that period) do have brains from that phase of evolution.
Abortion at that point is normally only done in life-threatening situations, and I'd be fine with keeping it that way.
So a 1 year old baby(or a 6 years old child for that matter) is worth less than a 70 years old man? The latter has a significantly larger brain capability and awareness, because human evolution is partly set ex-uterus (from 0 to 20 years old approximately).
From a consistency standpoint, then I'd assume yes (at least by the same criteria which we use to determine a dog is more valuable than a mosquito) - but since it'd obviously be simpler to apply the same worth to all humans, rather than write "separate criteria" for every individual person based on their age or IQ.
Godoggo
12-06-14, 06:08 PM
From a consistency standpoint, then I'd assume yes (at least by the same criteria which we use to determine a dog is more valuable than a mosquito) - but since it'd obviously be simpler to apply the same worth to all humans, rather than write "separate criteria" for every individual person based on their age or IQ.
Who is this "we" you are referring to when you speak of values of life? Value to whom?
Who is this "we" you are referring to when you speak of values of life? Value to whom?
We, societies as a whole - based on what our legal precedents are regarding laws and application of laws which protect life (including human and non-human life)
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood. I don't think she asked you who values life--most people do. I think she asked who else shares your simplistic "brain power = humanity" measurement. You say "we" as if this is some kind of established principle, rather than just something you said.
Also:
If it doesn't end a life (which I believe evidence shows that it does not)
This is anti-scientific nonsense. Of course it ends "a life"--it's inarguably a living organism. And it's inarguably human, too, unless you care to explain to me what genus you think it is other than homo sapien. Neither of these facts are disputable.
What is disputable, potentially, is whether or not all forms of human life should automatically be granted rights. So argue that, rather than trying to give your positions a faux aura of scientific authority.
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood. I don't think she asked you who values life--most people do. I think she asked who else shares your simplistic "brain power = humanity" measurement. You say "we" as if this is some kind of established principle, rather than just something you said.
Also:
This is anti-scientific nonsense. Of course it ends "a life"--it's inarguably a living organism.
As is a sperm cell or an amoeba, yes
unless you care to explain to me what genus you think it is other than homo sapien. Neither of these facts are disputable.
And it's inarguably human, too,
A thing with no brain isn't human in any "individual sense". Brain activity is what truly determines individuality and rights than what "genus" something happens to fall into.
At the immediate post-conception state - a bird, or a snake is closer to an individual in terms of conscious than an embryo is, and their brain activity is closer to that of an adult human.
What is disputable, potentially, is whether or not all forms of human life should automatically be granted rights. So argue that, rather than trying to give your positions a faux aura of scientific authority.
Scientifically an embryo has no brain - and is smaller than a gnat's brain. Something without a brain can hardly be called an individual, since the brain is the sole source of individuality, and the most consistent metric which we use to determine the worth of different forms of life.
This seems to be how every argument goes: you say something completely wrong, and when corrected you start adding all sorts of qualifiers which weren't there originally. Which means you're routinely making big statements you can't defend.
And FYI, a sperm cell is not life. I feel like this is the kind of thing you should know if you're going to be telling everyone about science and how it totally backs you up.
This seems to be how every argument goes: you say something completely wrong, and when corrected you start adding all sorts of qualifiers which weren't there originally. Which means you're routinely making big statements you can't defend.
If you removed the brain from a human corpse, and were able to reanimate their body with magic - even if you were able to make it do things like walk, talk, or eat - it wouldn't be considered a "person".
So if I said that biologically an embryo is not alive then I misspoke - biologically however it has no brain. My argument is that it is not an individual since it lacks a brain. Just as a chicken egg the second after fertilization isn't considered a "chicken"; breaking the egg would not be considered animal cruelty like killing a live chicken for a cruel purpose.
to me the only consistent pro-life position is veganism (though even then you run into complications, such as bananas still having a full set of DNA). Brain activity as the criteria for what or when different life forms have rights is a more consistent position, than for example, someone deciding that a brainless human embryo is no different than a baby, but at the same time having no problem with cows being killed for food (despite a cow having awarness and ability to feel pain, while the human embryo does not).
And FYI, a sperm cell is not life. I feel like this is the kind of thing you should know if you're going to be telling everyone about science and how it totally backs you up.
[/quote]
It's a form of life - it's not an inanimate object like a stone or grain of sand.
How is that ridiculous? If it doesn't end a life (which I believe evidence shows that it does not), then what's the problem? If it does end a life, how can you personally justify wanting murder to be legal in the event that the "baby" was born of rape or incest? Should it also be legal when the baby is 2 years old.
Because it poses threat to women's body, like it or not!
If it's her body rather than a human life, then why do you find using abortion as birth control "scary" - who's she being irresponsible to? Allah?
To herself, as I explained above!
That's an inconsistent argument. Why are you against it? Do you feel it is murder? If so then how can you justify an exception for rape?
Or if you believe preventing murder is imposing your beliefs on others. Then why should it be illegal to hire a hitman to murder your spouse as long as the taxpayer isn't covering it.
I don't feel it's murder... In fact I don't feel it isn't also! I'm not sure where I stand in the question: since when are you a human being?
Also, I don't agree with you when you say a mosquito is less valuable than a dog, anda dog is less valuable than a human. It's life, why shouldn't you respect it equally? An old man is more valuable than a children because its IQ and experience, or less valuable because it will probably live less time? Who decides? I don't need to believe in God or any higher power to believe that life is life, everything should be respected!
I don't know why you "should" - but on the same note why "shouldn't" you? The Constitution doesn't give you a right to be exempt from paying for something just because "you don't like it". I'm sure many anti-war individuals dislike their money being used to fund military weapons development, but they have no specific "right" not to pay those taxes either.
If you feel you shouldn't then you're free to help elect politicians who share your view and will pass laws in your favor, but there's no obligation for others to base laws solely around what you like or don't
like. So the "why should I argument" doesn't hold much water here.
Having unprotected sex is a rational decision. And as any decision, it has consequences. If you can't deal with them, protect yourself. If you can't protect yourself in that moment, don't have sex, it's as simple as that!
Because it poses threat to women's body, like it or not!
To herself, as I explained above!
So does smoking and fast food consumption. Not to mention that childbirth is statistically more threatening to the body than an early-term abortion.
I don't feel it's murder... In fact I don't feel it isn't also! I'm not sure where I stand in the question: since when are you a human being?
I have a brain and a will - without that I'd just be a sack of organs. Just like a car without an engine isn't much of a car now is it? Just a hunk of metal.
Also, I don't agree with you when you say a mosquito is less valuable than a dog, anda dog is less valuable than a human. It's life, why shouldn't you respect it equally?
Not all "life" is equal in terms of awareness or potential - a mosquito is much less aware of its existence, or able to feel pain, than a dog is. Overall laws offer greater protection to different species based on how high their awareness is
An old man is more valuable than a children because its IQ and experience, or less valuable because it will probably live less time? Who decides?
I don't need to believe in God or any higher power to believe that life is life, everything should be respected!
So you are a vegan? You never consume or kill any form of animal life - not even a small insect? What about microscopic organisms? Some Hindus wear scarves over their mouths to avoid inhaling tiny organisms, and brush off the paths in front of them to prevent stepping on any small insect as they walk - do you?
Having unprotected sex is a rational decision. And as any decision, it has consequences. If you can't deal with them, protect yourself.
It only has consequences if you're a Wahhabi - and most of us aren't (thank Allah)
If you can't protect yourself in that moment, don't have sex, it's as simple as that!
Non sequiter.
"Fast food eating has consequences - if you get heart disease, then it's your fault for eating fast food - it should be illegal for you to receive medical care - that's just trying to bypass your consequences of your unhealthy lifestyle".
"Smoking has consequences - if you get lung cancer, then you shouldn't have smoked - don't go asking for a lung transplant, just suck it up and die - this is nature's punishment for you for adding more carbon emissions to the atmosphere anyway".
If you removed the brain from a human corpse, and were able to reanimate their body with magic - even if you were able to make it do things like walk, talk, or eat - it wouldn't be considered a "person".
That's because when you remove the brain, you also remove all its potential. A fertilized embryo is different: the lack of a brain does not equate to a lack of potential, because it's in the process of growing one.
According to your logic, two objects are identical if they're in the same place, even if they're traveling at different speeds in different directions. You're basically pretending that time doesn't exist, and nothing has a trajectory or an eventuality attached to it. But time is the only thing that allows life to be different from inanimate objects, so any worldview that ignores it is not actually applicable to reality.
In a nutshell: you're dumbing down reality so that it conforms to your philosophy, rather than forming a philosophy which describes reality.
So if I said that biologically an embryo is not alive then I misspoke - biologically however it has no brain.
So you oppose abortion after 8 weeks? Cob asked this earlier, and you didn't really answer his question--you answered a vaguely related one and punted on the tough part.
At 8 weeks there is a working brain. There is no legal requirement that abortions at this point protect the physical health of the mother, and 95% of abortion clinics are willing to perform the procedure without that qualification. So according to your standard, abortion should be illegal after this point, and you support far more abortion restrictions than are currently enacted in law, right?
to me the only consistent pro-life position is veganism
This confuses simplicity with consistency. It might feel somehow "cleaner" to have one overarching standard upon which an entire position is based, but if it leads to absurd conclusions (like making no distinction between grown animals and human infants), then it's led you astray. Suggesting that people become more human as they grow is a horrifying suggestion with horrifying ethical implications.
WoOdWoRk
12-07-14, 04:30 PM
You guys seem to be engaged in an arduous debate, though with equanimity, you are in a veritable quagmire on a thorny subject. The core debate is for/against abortion right? At some point you two should drop the guns and agree to disagree.
Or enter Thunderdome.:D
That's because when you remove the brain, you also remove all its potential. A fertilized embryo is different: the lack of a brain does not equate to a lack of potential, because it's in the process of growing one.
The same could be said about contraception - it removes the "potential" for the creation of a person, but since the person doesn't exist yet - no harm done. No brain = no person, regardless of "potential".
According to your logic, two objects are identical if they're in the same place, even if they're traveling at different speeds in different directions. You're basically pretending that time doesn't exist, and nothing has a trajectory or an eventuality attached to it. But time is the only thing that allows life to be different from inanimate objects, so any worldview that ignores it is not actually applicable to reality.
In a nutshell: you're dumbing down reality so that it conforms to your philosophy, rather than forming a philosophy which describes reality.
So you oppose abortion after 8 weeks? Cob asked this earlier, and you didn't really answer his question--you answered a vaguely related one and punted on the tough part.
At 8 weeks there is a working brain. There is no legal requirement that abortions at this point protect the physical health of the mother, and 95% of abortion clinics are willing to perform the procedure without that qualification. So according to your standard, abortion should be illegal after this point, and you support far more abortion restrictions than are currently enacted in law, right?
Abortion at that point is normally only done to save the mothers life, so this is really just a "red scare"; and even in the event that a perfectly healthy baby was aborted without any medical reason, more children still die in alcohol related car accidents each day - so bringing back the Prohibition would likely save more lives (if this really was the true agenda).
I'd be fine with it being made outright illegal except in those life-threatening cases (which Roe vs Wade already allows the states to do).
This confuses simplicity with consistency. It might feel somehow "cleaner" to have one overarching standard upon which an entire position is based, but if it leads to absurd conclusions (like making no distinction between grown animals and human infants), then it's led you astray. Suggesting that people become more human as they grow is a horrifying suggestion with horrifying ethical implications.
Before the brain exists - the "person" does not exist.
That also a slippery slope anyway - the same argument could be made against eating meat (ex. "it devaluate life and will eventually lead to Soylent Green unless we all go vegan).
Godoggo
12-07-14, 05:26 PM
So you are a vegan? You never consume or kill any form of animal life - not even a small insect? What about microscopic organisms? Some Hindus wear scarves over their mouths to avoid inhaling tiny organisms, and brush off the paths in front of them to prevent stepping on any small insect as they walk - do you?".
That's an absurd response. You can't redefine something to a ridiculous extreme to "win" an argument. Because one does not wear scarves over their mouths and brush off the path before them does not mean that they do not respect life.
If your going to use all these fallacious argument terms then learn them and apply them to yourself.
That's an absurd response. You can't redefine something to a ridiculous extreme to "win" an argument. Because one does not wear scarves over their mouths and brush off the path before them does not mean that they do not respect life.
According to Jainists it does.
If your going to use all these fallacious argument terms then learn them and apply them to yourself.
I only respect human life with a brain - what's in consistent about that? I don't claim to respect the "life" of a brain-less embryo while munching on the corpse of living things which had an actual brain and knew what was happening before they were slaughtered.
Godoggo
12-07-14, 05:47 PM
According to Jainists it does.
I only respect human life with a brain - what's in consistent about that? I don't claim to respect the "life" of a brain-less embryo while munching on the corpse of living things which had an actual brain and knew what was happening before they were slaughtered.
I don't care. Is Neiba a Jainist? Do you have to be one to respect life? No.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about throwing terms like non sequitur and others about when your so very guilty of fallacious arguments yourself.
The same could be said about contraception - it removes the "potential" for the creation of a person, but since the person doesn't exist yet - no harm done. No brain = no person, regardless of "potential".
Yeah, I thought this would be the response. The comparison is invalid, because a fertilized embryo is in the process of realizing its potential, and is stopped only if something specifically prevents it from doing so. This is fundamentally different from the potential that raw materials have if something comes along to combine them in the right way.
and even in the event that a perfectly healthy baby was aborted without any medical reason, more children still die in alcohol related car accidents each day - so bringing back the Prohibition would likely save more lives (if this really was the true agenda).
I'm highlighting this part because it's a textbook example of the fallacious arguments Goddogo is talking about. This argument is chock-full of glaring errors. Let's run through them, shall we?
First: you're assuming--for no reason whatsoever--that anyone who cares about life must care about it at the expense of all other things. In reality, people care about freedom and life, and there's a necessary trade off between the two.
Second: the consumption of alcohol is not what technically causes the accidents in question. It's the combination of alcohol consumption with driving, which is already illegal.
Third: there's an obvious ethical and legal difference between allowing people to engage in risky behavior that may bring about death, and actions which bring about death by definition.
Serious question: have you actually given serious thought to these issues? Because I can't figure out how someone who has could advance such an obviously flawed argument.
I'd be fine with it being made outright illegal except in those life-threatening cases (which Roe vs Wade already allows the states to do).
Not in practice. These sorts of laws are routinely struck down even with such an exemption, and the exemption has to include a definition of health that includes non-physical harm, which means it can always be satisfied.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when asked if you're against this, you instead reply that you're "fine" with it not being allowed. That's an important difference, because part of the problem is that you don't seem to actually care about stopping this thing that your worldview says you ought to disagree with. You may grudgingly admit that your other arguments force you to concede this particular point, but the fact that you seem so uninterested in it (and intensely interested in your disagreements with the other side of the issue) make it seem as if even you don't entirely take your views seriously.
That also a slippery slope anyway - the same argument could be made against eating meat (ex. "it devaluate life and will eventually lead to Soylent Green unless we all go vegan).
I think you mean that the same argument could be made if I first accept your simplistic equation of brain function to humanity. But I don't.
Most of your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that people already share your presuppositions. That's not how arguments work.
Also, you ignored the most relevant part of the response. I'll reproduce it here:
According to your logic, two objects are identical if they're in the same place, even if they're traveling at different speeds in different directions. You're basically pretending that time doesn't exist, and nothing has a trajectory or an eventuality attached to it. But time is the only thing that allows life to be different from inanimate objects, so any worldview that ignores it is not actually applicable to reality.
In a nutshell: you're dumbing down reality so that it conforms to your philosophy, rather than forming a philosophy which describes reality.
If one person is going up in an elevator and another down, they are not identical when they cross each other. Reality does not just consistent of current physical state: it also consists of momentum and trajectory, both literal and abstract. Any worldview or argument which doesn't account for this is useless, and will produce absurd results.
Pussy Galore
12-07-14, 07:16 PM
Ace, even vegans eat some sort of life. Vegetables and fruits are living things, only they are not as recognizable as animals. It is a harsh, but true reality we have to face as living things: We have to eat other living things in order to survive. Personally what I think according to that is that the least we can do is to make sure the living things we eat are being threated and killed in a ethic and morally acceptable way. (By that I mean that I do not accept to eat beef that has been grown inside in a ridiculous amount of space. Same goes for foie gras.
As for abortion, I am a man so I would never have to get an abortion so it's hard for me to imagine the situation. However I'll try, let's say, hypothetically, I am a woman and after a long night in a bar I go home with a stranger, his condom does not contain his sperm and I am pregnant. Would I get an abortion, personally no I don't think so because I would feel guilty, but can I say that generally this sentiment would be felt by every other woman no I can't.
If I understand correctly , Yoda, what you're saying is that the foetus has the potential to become a living thing with self conscience so it wouldn't be morally correct to kill it. to that I'd answer that gay couples, woman using contraceptive pills and just couple who doesn't want any kind of children are as guilty as the woman who decides to get an abortion. When you choose a lifestyle you also choose to neglect everything that is excluded from that lifestyle. The choice not to give life is okay, but not if the woman is pregnant? What is the difference?
Yeah, I thought this would be the response. The comparison is invalid, because a fertilized embryo is in the process of realizing its potential, and is stopped only if something specifically prevents it from doing so. This is fundamentally different from the potential that raw materials have if something comes along to combine them in the right way.
That's just begging the question - stating that because an embryo if left to its own devices will become a person that this gives it the same rights as an adult person? I digress.
An Ostrich egg 1 second after fertilization may have the potential to become an ostrich, but crushing the egg is obviously not considered the same as killing a live ostrich.
I'm highlighting this part because it's a textbook example of the fallacious arguments Goddogo is talking about. This argument is chock-full of glaring errors. Let's run through them, shall we?
First: you're assuming--for no reason whatsoever--that anyone who cares about life must care about it at the expense of all other things. In reality, people care about freedom and life, and there's a necessary trade off between the two.
Second: the consumption of alcohol is not what technically causes the accidents in question. It's the combination of alcohol consumption with driving, which is already illegal.
Third: there's an obvious ethical and legal difference between allowing people to engage in risky behavior that may bring about death, and actions which bring about death by definition.
Serious question: have you actually given serious thought to these issues? Because I can't figure out how someone who has could advance such an obviously flawed argument.
Not in practice. These sorts of laws are routinely struck down even with such an exemption, and the exemption has to include a definition of health that includes non-physical harm, which means it can always be satisfied.
And don't think I haven't noticed that, when asked if you're against this, you instead reply that you're "fine" with it not being allowed. That's an important difference, because part of the problem is that you don't seem to actually care about stopping this thing that your worldview says you ought to disagree with. You may grudgingly admit that your other arguments force you to concede this particular point, but the fact that you seem so uninterested in it (and intensely interested in your disagreements with the other side of the issue) make it seem as if even you don't entirely take your views seriously.
If there was bill in progress to ban non-medical late term abortion on the federal level I would support its passage
It's rare for pro-lifers however to even make a distinction, and they tend to lump "abortion" all into one bucket (well, with the exception of rape and incest - which is completely hypocritical if they're stance is that it is "murder")
I think you mean that the same argument could be made if I first accept your simplistic equation of brain function to humanity. But I don't.
Most of your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that people already share your presuppositions. That's not how arguments work.
I see more historical precedent equating brain function with "rights" as a being than your definition, or any of the other definitions used.
You guys seem to be engaged in an arduous debate, though with equanimity, you are in a veritable quagmire on a thorny subject. The core debate is for/against abortion right? At some point you two should drop the guns and agree to disagree.
Or enter Thunderdome.:D
Good point
That's just begging the question - stating that because an embryo if left to its own devices will become a person that this gives it the same rights as an adult person? I digress.
Straw man. I didn't say it gets "the same rights as an adult person." The question is whether it gets any rights.
An Ostrich egg 1 second after fertilization may have the potential to become an ostrich, but crushing the egg is obviously not considered the same as killing a live ostrich.
Notice how you've flipped the burden of proof: you started off by arguing that something without a brain is no different than something which is still growing one. Now you've backtracked into arguing that it just isn't as valuable as it will be once it's fully formed.
If there was bill in progress to ban non-medical late term abortion on the federal level I would support its passage
So why is there such a discrepancy between your beliefs and your actions? If you believe what you're saying then you think it's legal to kill a person with a brain without any consequences or qualifications. This is a far bigger disagreement with the pro-choice side of the issue than the relatively pedantic complaint about pro-lifers simply not wanting to directly pay for the procedure. But that's the thing you decide to go out of your way to argue about. This admission I have to grudgingly drag out of you.
I see more historical precedent equating brain function with "rights" as a being than your definition, or any of the other definitions used.
Really? What historical precedent? And why do you think historical precedent demonstrates anything about whether or not you claim is reasonable, or have any relation to whether or not it's logically valid to make arguments based on a premise that the other party hasn't accepted?
Also, in each of the last couple of posts you quoted two things but only responded to one (and in both cases the thing ignored was, in my opinion, the most damning). Here they are:
First: you're assuming--for no reason whatsoever--that anyone who cares about life must care about it at the expense of all other things. In reality, people care about freedom and life, and there's a necessary trade off between the two.
Second: the consumption of alcohol is not what technically causes the accidents in question. It's the combination of alcohol consumption with driving, which is already illegal.
Third: there's an obvious ethical and legal difference between allowing people to engage in risky behavior that may bring about death, and actions which bring about death by definition.
Serious question: have you actually given serious thought to these issues? Because I can't figure out how someone who has could advance such an obviously flawed argument.
According to your logic, two objects are identical if they're in the same place, even if they're traveling at different speeds in different directions. You're basically pretending that time doesn't exist, and nothing has a trajectory or an eventuality attached to it. But time is the only thing that allows life to be different from inanimate objects, so any worldview that ignores it is not actually applicable to reality.
In a nutshell: you're dumbing down reality so that it conforms to your philosophy, rather than forming a philosophy which describes reality.
The latter's the more important of the two, since it cuts to the fundamental error at the core of your argument. But the former matters because I want to know what kind of person I'm arguing with. I'll argue all day with someone thoughtful, but I have no interest in rebutting someone's kneejerk reactions. I'm not going to think more about your arguments than you do.
So does smoking and fast food consumption. Not to mention that childbirth is statistically more threatening to the body than an early-term abortion.
And smoking and fast food have been suffering heavier and heavier legislation, like they should!
Childbirth is a natural thing, and most important, essencial for the living of the species, so there's no comparing!
I have a brain and a will - without that I'd just be a sack of organs. Just like a car without an engine isn't much of a car now is it? Just a hunk of metal.
That's YOUR opinion. That question is far too much relative and personal to legislate it according to one answer! What if a doctor believes that abbortion is murder?
Not all "life" is equal in terms of awareness or potential - a mosquito is much less aware of its existence, or able to feel pain, than a dog is. Overall laws offer greater protection to different species based on how high their awareness is
A paraplegic does not feel physical pain, a mentally sick person has less awareness of its existence than you or me. Do they have less value?
And yeah, the best way to decide the value of life is law, no doubt.
So you are a vegan? You never consume or kill any form of animal life - not even a small insect? What about microscopic organisms? Some Hindus wear scarves over their mouths to avoid inhaling tiny organisms, and brush off the paths in front of them to prevent stepping on any small insect as they walk - do you?
I eat animals for survival because I'm an omnivore. I don't kill animals for fun, not even mosquitos. Of course I'm not always thinking about what I'm stepping but I don't tend to make a conscious decision to terminate a life, no matter how small sized. But that's just me.
It only has consequences if you're a Wahhabi - and most of us aren't (thank Allah)
No, it has consequences if you are a human. Or any living form.
Non sequiter.
"Fast food eating has consequences - if you get heart disease, then it's your fault for eating fast food - it should be illegal for you to receive medical care - that's just trying to bypass your consequences of your unhealthy lifestyle".
"Smoking has consequences - if you get lung cancer, then you shouldn't have smoked - don't go asking for a lung transplant, just suck it up and die - this is nature's punishment for you for adding more carbon emissions to the atmosphere anyway".
Some years ago a woman sued Cola because after many years drinking more than 1 Lt./day she had a heart disease. Because this happened in the USA, she won and Cola had to pay. That's the right answer?
People should be aware of the way they live. I'm not saying that you shouldn't receive medical care for those cases but abbortion is far too different! It's a very ethical question that has more than only one answer. It shouldn't be treated lightly and sure as hell shouldn't be legislated lightly!
And smoking and fast food have been suffering heavier and heavier legislation, like they should!
Not necessarily. You'll note for example that many countries in Europe which much stricter anti-smoking legislation have double the rate of smokers as the US does.
On the same note however, smoking and fast food use are far more of a health risk to the body than a 1st Trimester abortion - as is actual pregnancy - I reiterate. So you can't use "health" as an excuse here.
Childbirth is a natural thing,
Humans are animals and are a part of nature, so any and every thing they do is "natural". Preventing childbirth is likewise a natural thing.
and most important, essencial for the living of the species,
In this day and age it's certainly not essential for every individual to have an unlimited amount of children, if anything else it's detrimental. Unless we end up in some "Mad Max scenario" with only a handful of survivors remaining after a nuclear war, it won't be an issue we'll have to worry about for at least 1000s years.
Right now the thousands of starving children abroad or the countless children who remain adopted should be far more of a concern to us than someone committing a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That is, of course assuming that the agenda is actual concern for children, rather than just forcing people to have them so that Allah will be happy, right?
so there's no comparing!
There certainly is.
That's YOUR opinion. That question is far too much relative and personal to legislate it according to one answer! What if a doctor believes that abbortion is murder?
That's his problem. What if a doctor believes meat is murder and refuses to provide medicine which contains animal products - then he loses his job, as he should. If he isn't willing to do his job then no one forced him to become a doctor.
A paraplegic does not feel physical pain, a mentally sick person has less awareness of its existence than you or me. Do they have less value?
Pragmatically speak yes they do. If I had a choice of only saving one stranger's life - an average joe or a genius who would discover a cure for cancer, I'd probably pick the genius - and most people would.
However both people you mentioned above have a functioning brain and a will, so obviously your argument doesn't apply.
And yeah, the best way to decide the value of life is law, no doubt.
I eat animals for survival because I'm an omnivore. I don't kill animals for fun, not even mosquitos. Of course I'm not always thinking about what I'm stepping but I don't tend to make a conscious decision to terminate a life, no matter how small sized. But that's just me.
That's really a cop out.
No, it has consequences if you are a human. Or any living form.
Not at all - sane people don't salivate over the thought of preganancy being a "consequence" for behavior declared immoral under Sharia Law. Wahhabists do.
Some years ago a woman sued Cola because after many years drinking more than 1 Lt./day she had a heart disease. Because this happened in the USA, she won and Cola had to pay. That's the right answer?
People should be aware of the way they live. I'm not saying that you shouldn't receive medical care for those cases but abbortion is far too different!
It's a very ethical question that has more than only one answer. It shouldn't be treated lightly and sure as hell shouldn't be legislated lightly!
Eating meat is likewise an ethical question - the "controversy" around abortion is disproportionately religious and authoritarian, and has very little to no real concern for life at all.
For example you demonstrated by your supposed concern over an embryo which has no brain function, but were able to shrug off killing and eating actual living organisms with actual brains and awareness just by saying "I'm an omnivore". That just reinforces my theory. That and the human rights record of societies which are the most authoritarian in this area (we all know that Saudi Arabia and Iran are champions for human rights, don't we)?
the "controversy" around abortion is disproportionately religious and authoritarian, and has very little to no real concern for life at all.
Yeah, you've said this before, but every (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1216078#post1216078) time (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1216519#post1216519) it's questioned you ignore the question, wait awhile, and then repeat the claim. I've mentioned the below twice already, without response:
"First: you're assuming--for no reason whatsoever--that anyone who cares about life must care about it at the expense of all other things. In reality, people care about freedom and life, and there's a necessary trade off between the two."
Also, your argument is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. Even if it were true (and it's not), the motivation of the arguers would have nothing to do with the coherence of the argument.
That and the human rights record of societies which are the most authoritarian in this area (we all know that Saudi Arabia and Iran are champions for human rights, don't we)?
This is wrong on both facts and theory. In terms of theory: it does not logically follow that anything an authoritarian society does is therefore an example of authoritarianism.
In terms of facts: abortion is illegal in Ireland; it is nowhere near an authoritarian state. Abortion was completely banned in America in the 1950s; it was also nowhere near an authoritarian state. More examples available. Like most political narratives, yours is based entirely on excluding contrary examples and a blatant misunderstanding of how correlation works.
I'd go on, but your posts are just barrages of poorly formed arguments and assumed conclusions, and you're ignoring tons of questions as it is.
I would think the answer to your question "Why does someone have the right not to pay for abortion coverage?" is that absent complications pregnancy isn't considered a medical ailment, something that needs to be remedied.
I can't take these kinds of discussions. I mean the kinds that start off on a faulty premise and have no hope of reaching a reasonable conclusion. Who wants to spend an hour writing a complex argument that's main point will be completely ignored?
I would think the answer to your question "Why does someone have the right not to pay for abortion coverage?" is that absent complications pregnancy isn't considered a medical ailment, something that needs to be remedied.
Basically this. Thanks VFN!
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.