• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Concern for the protection of women’s lives in anti-abortion laws is not a pro-choice ploy. It’s a p

joe1776

Well-Known Member
And unfortunately, it is this stage of mentality that many adults have yet to 'grow' beyond.
Your Church refers to conscience (moral intuition) as the Voice of God. I think the problem is that men, addicted to Reason Worship, think they know better so they lay down moral rules and laws for others to live by.
 
Last edited:

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
Since I have no religion, I will only be speculating on "the religious point of view."

I'm not sure that religious people do think that sins are to be punished in this world. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that killing is always a sin even if the facts support a killing in self-defense; but I've known a couple of JWs well and I've never heard either say that all killers should be punished.

On the other hand, since all religious people are human. And we humans are born with the ability to discern right from wrong and also born with the inclination to punish wrongful acts, how would we go about determining whether the inclination to punish was caused by religion or just naturally human?


Thank joe1776, I understand what you mean now.

From a secular perspective, I’d say that the telling of “right” from “wrong”, the tendency to judge others and the inclination to punish/reward them, are all socially constructed and taught.

We are born with brains to process information with, but the information available to us, depends on what we are born into.

Evolutionarily speaking, it has served Man well to learn and to adapt to whatever it is that is socially encouraged vs. discouraged in his surroundings, so Man is good at this. But that is all.

From a religious point of view however, the judgement and punishment of someone by a fellow human being is most problematic, as I see it. Therefore, I find it very strange that so many who claim to be of faith, have no issue with judging someone as “sinful”, for instance, and saying that Man - not God - should be in charge of their punishment.

That makes no sense in my opinion.
One either believes in God and God’s ability to judge fairly and punish according and thereby refrains from trying to do so in God’s place, or one does not believe in God and views both judgement and punishment as things to be carried out by Man.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It would be interesting to see where we are on the issue as a country by placing the abortion issue on the ballot and the result binding.

That seems to be the intention of the Democrats in Congress, who are putting up an array of initiatives to protect abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights, and access to contraception with no expectation that they will get past the Senate, to force every congressional Republican to vote. Over 90% of them vote against anything like this, which allows these bills to pass the House, but not get past a Senate filibuster. This will help anybody running against one of these people in purple states and congressional districts when campaigning ("Why did you vote against protecting the right to access to contraception, Senator Rubio?")

And why not? The Republicans just turned over their most effective wedge issue to the Democrats, one that can be used with every election cycle to get out the pro-choice vote as it had for the opposite for decades. This will be the equivalent of "they're coming for your guns." They're coming for your rights, so get out and vote if you value them.

And I expect it to be effective. The pundits (but not the one linked to below) forecast a loss for the Democrats based on past midterm elections following a change of party in the White House, but there are significant differences in 2022 working against the Republicans (abortion, guns, insurrection), they seem to be losing their high price of gas advantage as gas prices decline (people must be happy to be paying $85 rather than $100 for a tank of gas even if it used to be $50 a year or two ago), and polling doesn't support that hypothesis.

I don't play stupid " what if" games.

This answer will suffice. How do you think it is understood? I'm pretty sure I know what your choice would be. One poster surprised me by being frank about choosing the frozen embryos, but that's got to be exceptionally rare, and I don't know that if push came to shove he wouldn't do what the rest of us would. Frankly, I'd save a dog before those embryos. On that one, I think many anti-choicers might well choose the embryos over the dog, since they tend to be religious, and consider man to be just beneath the angels, and dogs don't rate at all.

If you care about living people you should care about the unborn, because that's is what they are.

This is the game you play - trying to coopt the empathy people naturally feel for babies and puppies and the like for an embryo. Embryos are people, right? You use as much emotive language as you can attempting to tug at instinctual heartstrings. Here you call them people. Sometimes you like to call them innocent babies. But embryos just don't elicit that response. If they imagine that, it isn't so cute. So, you prefer to redirect their imagination to that which makes them smile. (More on this below)

most abortion is merely for convenience.

Here's more of your attempt at emotional manipulation. Lazy woman, right? A hideous example of a human being, right? She needs a better reason for you than merely not wanting to drop out of high school and get a job waitressing to support a baby she can't afford to raise yet rather than finishing her education. But family planning is just a convenience to you. Convenience is stopping at a 7-Eleven for a breakfast burrito because it's close and fast. An unwanted baby is much, much, much more than an inconvenience, but I don't think most anti-choice proponents care. I don't think they care about the baby, either - just the embryo.

Will any of them ever express any empathy at all for these women? I haven't heard it. It's all, well, she should have thought of that before she spread her legs (translation: scr*w her, have that baby for Jesus anyway). This is the only message we hear from the right, which is why it's safe to say that they don't care at all about these women or even the life that the baby will be born into, just as long a fetus and its placenta are delivered.

No... they need the same rights as any human, which includes the right to life.

Human beings do not deserve special rights because they're human. That's a religious belief, that man is somehow fundamentally different from the beasts and worthy of more respect. Not to me. A human embryo has no more rights than a chicken embryo. People and chickens deserve rights, but not their embryos. Actually, you can't tell the difference between the embryos. The embryo on the far right is not entitled to more rights because somebody believes that man (but not the beasts) is made in their deity's image.

I can see why you want to redirect people's imaginations to the phase not shown here, the adorable baby. That last thing (that's me doing with word choice what you do, but in reverse) shown in the bottom right corner still doesn't look fully human yet, so no oohs or aahs for it yet, but the top row does look like a shrimp cocktail (that's me doing what you do and choosing emotive language to influence opinion, but in this case, in the opposite direction).

Comparative-Embryology.jpg
 
Last edited:

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
It's anti-choicers who focus endlessly on late term abortions, pro-choice has nothing to do with the very rare late term abortions performed from medical necessity, as described. So thanks for proving that point, I was getting nowhere.
Then why are the pro death advocates always harping on saving the woman's life?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Will any of them ever express any empathy at all for these women? I haven't heard it. It's all, well, she should have thought of that before she spread her legs (translation: scr*w her, have that baby for Jesus anyway). This is the only message we hear from the right, which is why it's safe to say that they don't care at all about these women or even the life that the baby will be born into, just as long a fetus and its placenta are delivered.
Horse pucky. The pro life do more for unplanned pregnancies than the pro death crowd ever did. They offer free help, with no strings attached.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Human beings do not deserve special rights because they're human. That's a religious belief, that man is somehow fundamentally different from the beasts and worthy of more respect. Not to me. A human embryo has no more rights than a chicken embryo.
I assume you don't eat eggs or meat then. If you do you just said you would be a cannibal, no problem.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
This has been exposed as false, yet you still use it? It also has nothing whatever to do with abortion, and the pro-choice argument. Lastly this is yet another of your slippery slope fallacies.

There IS a thing called the 'slippery slope fallacy', only it's often not a fallacy. Just look how America is slowly ramping up its support for Ukraine - it was only ever going to be about Soviet era equipment, no advisors, no American aircraft etc.. Now it's A10 Warthogs, HIMAS... soon 300 km artillery etc.. For the gay movement it was about 'decriminalisation' and a promise never to promote it in schools, seek gay marriage etc.. Euthenasia in Australia was only ever going to be about the last six months of terminal, painful suffering - never about suicide of people who feel they are just a burden to family and society (now 47% of cases)
Now 'medicinal marijuana' and how it isn't a gateway drug.
So yeah, there's slippery slope arguments, and real slippery slopes.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Oh that's simple they're not, the misogynistic anti-choicers who want to enslave women are. It's a pathetic smokescreen. All they have is this kind of duplicitous rhetoric.
Seriously? It's the pro choice that bring it up constantly on every thread about abortion.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
My kidneys don't develop into babies. Learn some basic biology.
When talking about donating one's bodies to to support of other people's lives, why do anti--choicers always equate the fetus to the bodily organs and not to the person who needs support? You argue that the fetus is a person, and then you promptly cast it into the role of a body part. Learn some basic biology. And basic grammar. And basic conceptual consistency.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
When talking about donating one's bodies to to support of other people's lives, why do anti--choicers always equate the fetus to the bodily organs and not to the person who needs support? You argue that the fetus is a person, and then you promptly cast it into the role of a body part. Learn some basic biology. And basic grammar. And basic conceptual consistency.
I didn't equate the fetus to a bodily organ. You did.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The pro life do more for unplanned pregnancies than the pro death crowd ever did.

The anti-choice people do nothing but remove choices. If a pregnant woman is coming for help about an unwanted pregnancy, she needs an abortion, not religious people trying to talk her (or fool her into missing deadlines) into having a baby she doesn't want. Those people are not her friend, nor her future baby's. They just want to use her as an incubator for Jesus. Did you read or see Rosemary's Baby? Or The Handmaid's Tale? This woman is a broodmare to these people.

I assume you don't eat eggs or meat then. If you do you just said you would be a cannibal, no problem.

No, you said that.

You and I had a similar discussion a few weeks back, and I remember pointing out that your conception of equality in the matter of man versus the beasts is lowering man, as seen with comments like, "That makes man no better than the animals" or "I'm no descendant of a monkey," as if animals are garbage. No, humanism elevates the beasts, not lowers man. The beasts are seen as non-human people, that deserve respect and dignity, and to be spared the indignities that a religious view of them facilitates. I've heard such people speculating over whether animals are conscious or can suffer.

You see animals as food, so when I call man their equal, you turn to cannibalism as the inevitable consequence of the man-beast equality. If man is no better than a chicken, then eat them both. Antispecism is the name of this ethical stance, that, "the species an animal is part of isn't a valid criterion to decide how it should be treated," and the consequence for somebody with humanist values is vegetarianism, not cannibalism.

no one is advocating letting the mom die.

That's not accurate. From What Happened to Exceptions for the Life of the Mother? - The Atlantic (may be behind a paywall if you don't subscribe and have seen your allotment of free Atlantic articles):

" Anti-abortion-rights groups, like Wisconsin Right to Life, have described the “life of the mother” exception as unnecessary and wrong. The Idaho GOP just approved a platform with no lifesaving exception. Republican candidates like Matthew DePerno, the Republican running to be Michigan’s attorney general, oppose all exceptions to abortion bans, and that includes to save a mother’s life. Conservative states are rushing to eliminate or narrow existing exceptions to their laws. Powerful groups like Students for Life, Feminists for Life, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) argue that “abortion is never medically necessary” and that doctors should always be punished for intentionally taking a fetal life."

As I said above, the anti-choice contingent is uninterested in the mother's well-being, just getting another live birth for Jesus, and why? Because of an ancient religion with ancient values that derived from a time when life was cheap, was short, many infants and women died in childbirth, and men were continually being slaughtered at war. Survival depended on every available womb working every year if possible. That was when underpopulation was a threat to the group's survival. And every rule that promoted fecundity was promoted - women should marry soon after menarche, they cannot withhold sex, the rhythm method is sin, no gay sex or masturbation, no sodomy, and no divorce. Is there any doubt what the motive for all of that is?

But today, the opposite is true. Overpopulation is the threat, and the modern world has evolved new morals - family planning, small families or no children, it doesn't matter who you love, birth control and abortion should be safe, effective and available. But this ancient monolith continues to exert pressure to have more children, because its sees its values as coming from a deity and therefore universal and unchanging. Here's where humanism comes to the rescue, with its rational ethics. Where religions are fossilized according to an ancient narrative, reason allows us to rethink the issue and make intelligent choices based on what is best for mankind and the beasts (old ideas don't work there, either).

The church is increasingly being seen as an albatross around the neck of mankind. It's net effect is very negative. It's the principle source for misogyny and homophobia. It's the principle source of anti-science sentiments and anti-intellectualism. And now, it's inserted itself deeply into government and is coming for hard-won rights in an attempt to drag humanity out of the abyss of this ancient and no longer relevant morality.

People want this destructive force - the organized, politicized church - neutralized. They don't mind private religion, but this isn't that. This is creeping theocracy, and is the basis of anti-theism, which is not anti-religion or anti-adherent, but anti-theocracy. Just as any educated and decent citizen should be advocating against the petrochemical industry's effort to harm mankind, so too should the same people be doing what they can to diminish the church's cultural hegemony, and that's anti-theism, or the opposition to theocratic tendencies in a secular state.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Seriously? It's the pro choice that bring it up constantly on every thread about abortion.

No, it's the anti-choicers who usually bring up late term abortions, pro-choice just explain how rare they are, and that they are usually medically expedient. Of course the answer is simply to make a termination freely available to any woman who needs one, as early as is practical. Of course the morning after pill is a step in the right direction there.
 
Top