They really do make 'em crazy in AZ

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by BrianR

The Catholic religion (and most others) forbids murder too. Should laws against that be repealed because they are "religious" in origin?

The idea behind separation of church and state isn't to look at all religious laws and do the opposite. It is to make laws on their own merits, without redard to religious laws. Murder as a law predates all current religions, possibly all religion. It isn't on the books because of the Bible.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The idea behind separation of church and state isn't to look at all religious laws and do the opposite. It is to make laws on their own merits, without redard to religious laws. Murder as a law predates all current religions, possibly all religion. It isn't on the books because of the Bible.

So, hypothetically, if we could find evidence of, say, the early Egyptians or another culture B.C.E. condemning abortion (or perhaps condemning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, to account for medical advances) as wrong, then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So, hypothetically, if we could find evidence of, say, the early Egyptians or another culture B.C.E. condemning abortion (or perhaps condemning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, to account for medical advances) as wrong, then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

No. I also don't support reimplementing Hammurabi's Code. It isn't the age of the muder law that's important, it's the nonreligious reasoning behind it. Anyway, Roe vs Wade isn't based on religious reasoning, but most of the agitation to reverse it is.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

There were laws and religion prior to the rise of either Judaism or Christianity.

I know you know that, but I just had to point that out ...

I was reminded of a conversation I had with a Catholic friend. I was detailing some of the History of the Early Catholic Church, and she suddenly got it ... She got this look of revelation on her face and said, "Wait, you mean that before Jesus everyone was pagan?!

[Clodfobble]

I agree that most pro-lifers believe what they do because of religious reasons. But do you at least agree that there *could* be an anti-abortion law based on the same reasoning as the murder law ("better for society") and not the "because God says so" reasoning?*


*FWIW, I'm one of those personally-pro-life-legally-pro-choice fence sitters. I very strongly believe that abortion should never again be illegal in this country.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But do you at least agree that there *could* be an anti-abortion law based on the same reasoning as the murder law ("better for society") and not the "because God says so" reasoning?*

Yes, there could be such a law. But like someone here said, the vast majority of arguments from pro-lifers are of the "God says so" variety. It's much more difficult to argue that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want is somehow "good" for society. In fact, I think if everyone looked at the issue without clouding it with religion or other personal beliefs, they would agree that having unprepared, ill-equipped people raising the next generation is most likely NOT good for society in general.

[DanaC]

*Grabs a bag of popcorn and a joint and settles in for the fireworks display*

Ahh that ol'favourite the Abortion debate. It's one of those unwinnable debates precisely because the one side argues from a sociopolitical standpoint and the other from a moral/theological standpoint. Each side is moving along an entirely different set of rails and as such cannot meet.

Go garnet! Right there with'ya

*stubs out joint and opens the popcorn*

[jaguar]

(about the economist) how right leaning is that?

Fairly. However it's rational which is more than you can say for most republicans.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Fairly. However it's rational which is more than you can say for most republicans.

Jag, we've already had this discussion. it is all a matter of perspective. to you the economist is right leaning. to the majority of americans it is either centrist or left leaning. this is the publication that declared GWB wasn't president about a year after the election.

and i think rather than saying most republicans are irrational it would be more fair to say that most people who hold strongly to any party line are pretty irrational.

[BrianR]

Then could not the banning of state-sanctioned (murder) of a fetus be considered "good common sense" as well? Common sense can be defined so many ways...

BTW, I am not a rabid Catholic or anti-abortionist, but I *am* a troublemaker

Brian

[alphageek31337]

Lookout, Garnet...if you guys want to flame each other, there's a private message feature you can use to keep your cock-measuring and destruction of an otherwise interesting discussion to a minimum.

As far as the abrotion debate goes, I will be pro-choice until I see common-sense, logical evidence to support the other side. Every argument I've seen from pro-life folk has boiled down to a religious issue, and therefore is invalid until the neocons actually establish the theocracy they are pushing oh-so-hard for. Abortion may be a sin, it may be immoral, it may be genuinely wrong, and there may be other options. Take that into account when you make YOUR decision as to whether your fetus (not baby, fetus, non-viable clump of cells that only differs from a tumor with regards to potential) should be brought into this world or not.

EDIT: I feel I have to add that another reason I'm pro-choice is that it is *not my decision*. As a male, I think I'm already over-stepping my bounds in having an opinion at all, because I'm not the one with the little bundle of DNA in my belly. In a functioning relationship, should the father be consulted as to the fate of his child? Of course he should. But the final decision rests on the mother. That being said, I could not justify to myself the idea that I might take away this woman's right to make a decision on an issue that doesn't actually concern me or my body.

"Protestors at abortion clinics are suing for the right to block entrances and harrass women as they enter the clinic. It's rather ironic, they want the right to do what they want with their bodies."
---Paraphrased from Dennis Miller