Abortion

[Patticus]

America is not supposed to be governed by religion.

 

Sadly, a large number of Americans seem to equate the idea of "freedom of religion" with "putting Christianity in an legal pedestal" and "forcing 'Christian values' on others." It's virtually impossible to get anywhere in American politics if you are anything other than a practicing Christian. Non-Christians are widely mistrusted, and Atheists are even prohibited from taking up public office in certain parts of the country. The actual meaning of the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, like that of the Second Amendment regarding gun ownership, has become twisted into something else entirely in many Americans' minds. I think that this twisting of meanings has lead in some way to the travesty we now see unfolding in Texas.

What America is and what it should be are two entirely different, probably incompatible things.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

America is not supposed to be governed by religion.

 

Says who exactly.

[Komodin]

Says who exactly.

 

I presume it's whoever concocted the "freedom of religion" part of the First Amendment of the Constitution? Whoever made the whole "separation of church and state" deal a thing?

[MamboCat]

I'm no expert on American history; but I'm sure it's known that the original intent was that church and state would be separate.

 

Anyways, I'm sure that comment wasn't aimed at you, and indeed any other Christians here. Just the ones that are actually deeply conservative in their views. That is what this legislation is; forcing the religious views of a minority on everyone else.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Says who exactly.

 

The founding fathers, the constitution, and common sense in general. Worship who you want, but don't mix that with how you govern.

[Nepenthe]

Indeed. As Goldwater once stated, the problem with religion and democracy is that the latter is absolute, in that you can't fuck with God, and the other relies on compromise to function. They are inherently at complete odds with each other, and being uncompromising doesn't amount to good governing. We've seen this with our shitty Congress ever since Obama was elected, and we've had glimpses of awful, oppressive Christian theocracies all throughout history, and even in some ways now with Uganda (Remember the Kill the Gays bill? Yeah). Point blank, religious rule really fucking sucks. We shouldn't even entertain the notion.

Anyway, in light of this wretched law, I ran across a quote from Wendy Davis, who was the politician who filibustered the initial version of this bill for some 13 odd hours under ridiculous conditions. It's a bit of an eye-opening quote to me, both in how it explains the concepts of bodily autonomy and just how much women don't have it under a pro-life position. Here:

There is a concept called body autonomy. It’s generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.

1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.

2. Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.

[PSI Wind]

Besides, if you pay attention in history, you'll find out that the church and state/country being as one doesn't work out very well in the end.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Wish that would happen. But not when you have rich conservatives running the country in both parties, a Military Industrial Complex that none of them dare oppose I see very little chance of true change ever happening for America, sorry.

Yeah, they probably said the same thing before African Americans were no longer slaves and blatant Second Class Citizens or Women were given the right to vote. Or even over if we would have our first African American president.

 

The only thing preventing change is either people not doing anything to stop it or slimy politicians trying to control people and keep that change from ever happening. Our conservative generation has a lot of old people trying to keep things this way, and while it'll take time, when they die out we might have a chance of change.

 

Says who exactly.

Did they skip teaching you the Bill of Rights when you took American History in school? Or do you just intentionally ignore its First Amendment?

Edited July 14, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Stacy]

Yeah, they probably said the same thing before African Americans were no longer slaves and blatant Second Class Citizens or Women were given the right to vote. Or even over if we would have our first African American president.

 

The only thing preventing change is either people not doing anything to stop it or slimy politicians trying to control people and keep that change from ever happening. Our conservative generation has a lot of old people trying to keep things this way, and while it'll take time, when they die out we might have a chance of change.

 

Did they skip teaching you the Bill of Rights when you took American History in school? Or do you just intentionally ignore its First Amendment?

 

 The social progress America makes is still far behind some the parts of the modern world like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and some of Europe. Even Obama is not progressive enough, he won't take risks or did stand up and make change like he said he would and even promised. Problem is American politicians aren't prepared to take risks to their career for the greater good. It doesn't help that Obama got a lot of corporate funding for his campaigns. Kennedy was probably the last president that stood up against the Pentagon and CIA after his death no president has done so since.

Edited July 15, 2013 by BW199148

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm saying it'll take time.

 

The political climate in the US has been a bigger shitstorm ever since Obama took office (hell, even before then), and unlike those in Australia who are willing to commit political suicide for the greater good, few if any American politicians have that kind of guts. I'd say that's because of how much more hostile politics in the US are compared to our more progressive allies, but I haven't looked that deep into other countries politics except the blatantly hostile ones I don't like.

 

But we won't stay in this state for long, and pessimism isn't going to help or might even make it worse if we don't have people willing to try.

 

Although I didn't know about Kennedy standing up to the Pentagon and CIA. No wonder we have conspiracy theorist over that stuff.

But some time in the future, we might have someone willing to do so.

Edited July 14, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[-Robin-]

Says who exactly.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Stop talking like broken records. One person is enough.

[Mauro Fonseca]

On this kind of thing, it'll tend to repeat itself until the person being corrected gives a signal that they've read.

 

Not criticizing or anything, just a tip on netiquette.

[Match]

Stop talking like broken records. One person is enough.

When you say things which make little sense, you are inviting responses from the many people you pissed off. Just the way it works.

[Nepenthe]

Also be aware you are not obligated to respond to everyone, especially if they're all making the same argument like now (that being separation of church and state exists and is better than a theocracy). At that point, you're free to just respond in general, rather than attacking the mere number of responses.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

When you say things which make little sense, you are inviting responses from the many people you pissed off. Just the way it works.

 

I was simply asking a question. I did not say anything or claim anything that made 'little sense'. =/

Edited July 14, 2013 by Ming Ming Hatsune

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

To many, asking a question with a very obvious answer over something religion and politics comes off as having 'little sense'.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

To many, asking a question with a very obvious answer over something religion and politics comes off as having 'little sense'.

 

Well people are different and the answer may not always be obvious.

[Tani Coyote]

So let's give this a bump.

I'll be blunt.

I consider abortion to be a morally-reprehensible act. But on the same token in my opinion, so is condemning a child to an orphanage or to a parent who either does not wish to or cannot provide for it. This is thus an issue for me where I need to weigh one evil against another.

Abortion bans cure one ill but just create several more: they plunge more people into poverty, stuff our orphanages full of even more children who are practically guaranteed to have a lower quality of life than their peers, or subject some children to post-birth abuse or even murder.

The issue is inherently thorny. You have a person's right to their body, but yet you also have a right to life by the other party. How is it supposed to even be remotely easy for someone to decide one way or the other? What makes it worse is that most women who have abortions are demonised: do people really think it was an easy choice? I doubt most women who undergo the procedure are doing it because they're irresponsible, so much as they know they can't provide for the child. Women care even for their unborn children; have you seen the emotional wreck someone turns into after a miscarriage? It is clearly a tough decision and is nowhere near as easy and split-second as the pro-life movement tries to skew it.

Weighing the social ills, I would say as it stands abortion bans do more harm than good. Many of the pro-life movement being religious, they should know there are fates worse than death more than anyone. And they should accordingly understand that the child's quality of life likely wouldn't have been that good to begin with. If they really want to take abortion off the table, they're going to have to make some compromises: better child benefits, less strict adoption laws, and more scientific funding. Also, more widespread contraceptives. While abstinence only is a fine idea in principle, it is utter garbage in practice and we need to be realistic.

I do not believe a person inherently has the right to terminate the life of their unborn child anymore than one that's already born: a life is a life. I do, however, recognise sometimes rights need to be reined in for the greater good. Let us make it so a child isn't so demanding on the mother or her partner, and maybe we won't even need to touch the legality of abortion at all.

On that note I'll say that when my pro-life mother argues that babies should just be given up for adoption instead, I wish to slap her with a trout. There is no shortage of orphans, and the people who are pro-life are helping considerably in making adoption difficult. When you consider that it's been proven mentally retarded parents are better for a child's development than no parents at all, it shows how intellectually bankrupt the social conservative ideology is.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well people are different and the answer may not always be obvious.

Provided they weren't taught about this in their usual History class. A lot of people love to wave around the amendments they like and ignore the rest, but I'm pretty sure every American with the slightest interest in our politcs knows about the First Amendment in this day and age, especially with Islamophobia and the abortion issue being so vocal.

Edited July 15, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Tani Coyote]

I actually just thought of a perfect analogy with regards to how tough the abortion decision likely is to make.

I would say it is comparable to putting a pet to sleep. You are killing them, no matter how it is sliced, and it is a horrible, horrible decision to make. But ultimately... you do it because it is the best choice after all options are exhausted.

Ultimately? I believe most women who have the procedure would be happy to be a mother. But between not having a partner to raise it, or not having the money, or even being raped, and the fact the foster and adoption systems are utter crap, the tough choice has to be made.

"Can I really provide well for this child? Do I know anyone else who could?"

For many, if not most, that answer is no.

 

Provided they weren't taught about this in their usual History class. A lot of people love to wave around the amendments they like and ignore the rest, but I'm pretty sure every American with the slightest interest in our politcs knows about the First Amendment in this day and age, especially with Islamophobia and the abortion issue being so vocal.

Based on what I know of this train of argument it's about interpretation of the Constitution, so I pose this:

If we can't place trust in our jurors, who can we place trust in?

The people, who support tyrants (Augustus, Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin, etc. were all fairly popular in their heyday) as much as role models?

The politicians, who have shown their penchant for corruption since the dawn of man?

God, of whom there are many ideas of what he might be like?

Moving this issue back on topic... we must trust the abortion decisions made by the Supreme Court. Yes, the Court sometimes screws up - such as the Plessy decision. On the other hand, if you look at the decision more closely, you see a naive innocence (segregation being deemed okay because there is no way the facilities would be unequal) in it, one that Brown thoroughly rejected. If abortion is changed in the future by the Court, it will likewise be a delicate decision. The Court isn't interested in broad, sweeping remarks normally because it doesn't want to contradict itself down the line.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Uh...that wasn't about interpretation of the Constitution. I was talking about people simply being aware of the First Amendment over freedom of religion that just about anyone who took History has no excuse for not knowing about.

Edited July 15, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[iDEATH]

Stop talking like broken records. One person is enough.

 

[LATER BUDDY]

Geez guys, it's one thing to respond to a question but the amount of condescension here is retarded. Discuss like civil human beings and not rabid dogs.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

 

...are you trying to be funny or...