Should all religious-equivalent laws be struck down?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Levant, Jan 17, 2020.

  1. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    From another thread in another forum on this site:

    If the reason that some people object to killing unborn children is their religion and if their voice should not be considered because it is in their religion, then all murder must be allowed, not just that of unborn children. All theft must be allowed, no restrictions. Bearing false witness must be permitted.

    If you want to argue whether or not an unborn child is a human being or not, take it to another thread. This one is about whether laws against abortion are invalid or unconstitutional because of the faith of those who support the law.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  2. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bollocks!

    From here:
    France allows women to terminate during the period of gestation up to 70 days, after which they must keep and give birth to the gestating child. Meaning quite simply this: There is the notion of "gestation" during which the fertilized-egg is not-a-person with individual rights and, then, the point in time by which it indeed becomes "a person".

    Any country can decide that period in which abortion is legal and the point of time at which it becomes illegal.


    Damn simple ... !

    PS: France is a Very Catholic country.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  3. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again, you're talking about lemons and I'm talking about the whether a law should be null and void because some religion believes in the same idea. Please reread my post and try to respond to what it says.
     
  4. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,136
    Likes Received:
    7,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The question is too broad. If you want to covet thy neighbors wife, no government involvement is necessary. The right to swing your abortion opinion ends at her uterus.
     
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I definitely agree with the over-broadness of this OP. Even though its abortion related,
    it almost seems like it would fit better as its own topic, separate from abortion.
    But Lol! That's a really nice last line. Funny, and apt at the same time. Haha!
    "ends at her uterus". Although... I'd say its really only true to an extent.

    Case in point... I think I asked you this in another thread, but don't think I got an answer...
    What is your opinion of the following abortion reform compromise proposal?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/
    -Meta
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,136
    Likes Received:
    7,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It sounds reasonable to me, but I do not have a uterus. I oppose abortion, but my opinions should never be forced on others.

    If people choose to voluntarily donate, they can, but forcing tax payers to pay for abortions is an abuse of power. No one on either side of the abortion issue objects to providing for the less fortunate.
     
  7. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The question is not at all too broad. I didn't mention coveting neighbor's wives. I'm not aware of laws against coveting so it's not an example that fits the scenario. There have been, probably still are, laws against adultery, though, and there's a commandment in the Judeo-Christian faith.

    If there are still adultery laws, do you think they should be dropped because some people who are against adultery are Christians? Do you think that sodomy laws should be dropped because some people who are against sodomy are Christians? Then you must think that murder laws should be dropped because some people who are against murder are Christians.

    Or, perhaps murder laws are good, even for atheists, and people are able to judge right from wrong on their own. So adultery laws are bad not because the Bible says, "thou shall not commit adultery," but because the government has no business in bedrooms. And maybe sodomy laws are bad not because Christians believe sodomy is bad but, instead, because the government has no business in bedrooms.

    The opinions of people of faith, any faith, regarding right and wrong cannot be discarded simply because the person has a religion - or doesn't have a religion. Intelligent people can debate right and wrong on logical or scientific merits. Religion has nothing to do with it.

    If you can't defeat any argument logically or scientifically, and the only way you have to challenge it is that it came from someone's religion, then you've lost the argument.
     
  8. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I asked in the opening post that the right or wrong of abortion not be discussed in this thread. Please don't thread-jack. This thread is about whether a person's views, for or against, should be dismissed simply because they have, or don't have, faith in some religion.
     
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you would be supportive of a proposal like that then?... as a compromise?

    -Meta
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,491
    Likes Received:
    9,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're missing an important distinction between laws that enforce morality and laws that protect stability. Abortion is a prime example of something that is wrong but does not destabilize society.

    Murder and theft are wrong, but they're also socially destabilizing, and that is why they're illegal.

    Enforcement of morality for its own sake is just authoritarianism.

    I hate abortion, but theres no logical reason to restrict it with laws, and in fact theres many reasons to keep it legal if individual liberty is valued, primary among them being the legal precedent to body autonomy, or body sovereignty as I like to think of it.

    As a purely moral issue, its practice should be resisted socially, not legislatively.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
    Blaster3 likes this.
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, no you didn't. All you said was not to discuss what was/wasn't a "human being".
    And if you didn't want to discuss right or wrongness of abortion,
    why did you post the thread in the abortion section??? :/
     
    Maquiscat and Derideo_Te like this.
  12. K9Buck

    K9Buck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I oppose abortion because it adversely affects an innocent third-party. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
     
  13. K9Buck

    K9Buck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    @Levant I believe society laws should be based on the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Society laws should not be based on religions.
     
  14. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Good catch, mea culpa. It's still a thread-jack. The thread is about whether a law should be banned because supporters of the law believe in a religion that supports the law. If abortion laws are bad because right-to-lifers are Christian then murder laws are bad.

    Point is, religion has nothing to do with the right or wrong of abortion, not one way and not the other.
     
  15. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Still a thread-jack.
     
  16. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,668
    Likes Received:
    28,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the majority of Abortions in this country are had by Christians, they seem to have no issue with it
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like other posters have already pointed out, laws should not be based on religious beliefs.
    That does not somehow mean that murder et al should then become legal;
    there are after all plenty of non-religious, secular folk who support such laws.
    Prohibitions on murder are not in place simply because some religion demands it.

    -Meta
     
    Blaster3 and Derideo_Te like this.
  18. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,668
    Likes Received:
    28,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a law can only be passed for secular reasons, anyone that uses a religious reason would be shot down

    for example, Christmas is a secular holiday, even though Christians also celebrate it religiously

    the reality is, I can't force you to let me tap into your blood supply without permission from you... if I do while your unconscious, you could have the connection removed (even if it meant I would die)........ same applies to a women, she can not be forced to be a host for 9 months, she has to do that voluntarily
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Levant, btw, still curious… why did you create this thread in the abortion section
    if you didn't want anyone discussing abortion???... That doesn't seem very intuitive.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  20. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. So folks like I quoted in the opening post should quit dismissing the opinions of people who have religion and claiming that laws shouldn't exist simply because people with religious beliefs support the laws.

    Right and wrong can be determined by intelligent beings whether or not they have religious beliefs. I'll bet that even the person I quoted in post 1 would agree that murder is bad and he claims to have no religion. So beliefs on right and wrong don't actually stem from religion. Religion may teach the importance of doing right over wrong but, religion or not, intelligent beings are able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
     
  21. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you read post 1? There was, in a different thread, someone implied that beliefs of right and wrong, using abortion as an example, come only from religion. He lied, of course, based on his contempt for religion. He has beliefs of right and wrong, himself. Because he used abortion as the example, the safest thing is to have the discussion here. And, once we can all agree (like that's going to happen) that people are able to judge right from wrong separate from religion, then we can stick to logic, ethics, science, and those who cannot win this, or any other, debate on its merits will have to recognize, though they'll never admit, that they are wrong.
     
  22. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Another thread-jack.

    Are the laws wrong because people who supported them are of a particular religion?

    It's not Christians, or people of any faith, that depend on religion to support their beliefs about right and wrong; it's people like the one I quoted in post 1 who cannot discuss right and wrong without religion - because his views of right and wrong, or at least his arguments about right and wrong, are colored by his contempt for religion. But you know what they say about love and hate... Clearly something in his life caused his contempt and he's not able to handle it emotionally.
     
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,668
    Likes Received:
    28,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    did you read all the way to the end of my post, already answered

    "for example, Christmas is a secular holiday, even though Christians also celebrate it religiously"

    this is a valid law, same with marriage, ect... the laws are not religious, religious marriage means nothing in fact, only the legal marriage has any legal meaning
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I see why you created the thread... and its a good question to ask.
    Just still a little fuzzy on why you created it here. And why you tailored it to abortion if you didn't want abortion discussed.
    Seems to me, that if you gear your thread to abortion and you create it in the abortion section, you have to expect
    that folks will then come by and try to talk about abortion.

    BTW, I agree with what LafayetteBis posted. Those who try to use religion as a justification for laws are wrong to do so.
    The fact that they're wrong to justify laws like that though does not necessarily mean that the laws they're trying to justify are wrong themselves.
    What needs to be considered is whether or not there are other justifications beyond the religious ones.

    -Meta
     
    Derideo_Te and Blaster3 like this.
  25. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly my point. So the member I quoted in post 1 is wrong and a person's religion has nothing to do with the argument about abortion. His attack on religion in that thread demonstrates his inability to debate the subject of that thread and his inability to debate in the abortion forum. I simply chose to not let his thread-jack of that thread take hold and brought it here.

    But the proof that his post was incorrect is in what you said: people are able to judge right and wrong even without religion.
     

Share This Page