Roe v Wade is on deck

[bilby]

It's funny. In parts of Australia, it's illegal to have organised prayer in order to convert a gay child into a straight one, yet it seems like the same people might be able to get away with having the child die due to untreated medical conditions.

I know Australia isn't New Zealand but there's a case in NZ right now of eleven people who denied insulin to a diabetic child figuring gawd would heal the child if they prayed hard enough being charged with some degree of murder. I don't remember correctly the exact charges. I cannot imagine that Australia doesn't have similar laws.

Do you have a link? Google isn't showing me anything similar - I am finding a NZ Herald story about religious medical neglect in Michigan, USA; And a story about an Otago nursing home manager that failed to administer insulin to an elderly diabetic resident due to an administrative error and is being charged with manslaughter; But nothing recent about religion inspired medical neglect of a diabetic child.

NZ and Australian law can often be quite divergent in regards to religious questions, and is hugely different in cases involving indigenous peoples, as NZ has a formal legal treaty between the colonial government and the Maori, while Australia had, until recently, a legal framework that treated Aboriginal peoples as nonexistent at best.

 

[Metaphor]

NZ and Australian law can often be quite divergent in regards to religious questions, and is hugely different in cases involving indigenous peoples, as NZ has a formal legal treaty between the colonial government and the Maori, while Australia had, until recently, a legal framework that treated Aboriginal peoples as nonexistent at best.

What?

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you have a link?

Sorry, it was actually Australia, Not New Zealand,

Parents 'withheld insulin from diabetic daughter to hold prayer ritual'

A dozen members of a religious group have been arrested after eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs died, with police alleging her parents turned to religion instead of medicine

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[bilby]

Do you have a link?

Sorry, it was actually Australia, Not New Zealand,

Parents 'withheld insulin from diabetic daughter to hold prayer ritual'

A dozen members of a religious group have been arrested after eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs died, with police alleging her parents turned to religion instead of medicine

www.mirror.co.uk

Ah, yes, I vaguely recall hearing about that. It was in Toowoomba, which is not far from here.

The Toowoomba region and the Lockyer Valley have far more than their share of religious nuts.

 

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

 

[Metaphor]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

 

[Oleg]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

I dunno. I'm an atheist. I certainly think that abortion at the stage of viabilty is murder.

 

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief. Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

 

[Metaphor]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

 

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

 

[Metaphor]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

You are making a category error. Some jurisdictions might define 'murder' as an act or omission that deliberately ends a human life. Under that definition, there would be nothing 'religious' about calling abortion 'murder', because human fetuses are presumably human and alive.

But that's not the point. A jurisdiction can make abortion illegal without invoking any religious belief, just as murder is illegal without invoking any religious belief.

And, as I have already said, you would not support religious exemptions from laws you agree with. So don't be a hypocrite and support them when you don't agree with the law.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief. Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

If abortion is in fact "murder" then why does the Indiana statute allow "murder" in cases of incest and rape? This would not make sense unless it is a law based on religion, not "science." Also, the law allows abortion up to ten weeks of pregnancy. How does this make "scientific" sense? Does "murder" only occur after ten weeks? Clearly it's not a scientific law, it's a law based on religious/moral/philosophical belief.

And I have not examined the penalties for violating the law but I suspect that these penalties are not in line with actual murder statutes.

 

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief. Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

If abortion is in fact "murder" then why does the Indiana statute allow "murder" in cases of incest and rape? This would not make sense unless it is a law based on religion, not "science." Also, the law allows abortion up to ten weeks of pregnancy. How does this make "scientific" sense? Does "murder" only occur after ten weeks? Clearly it's not a scientific law, it's a law based on religious/moral/philosophical belief.

And I have not examined the penalties for violating the law but I suspect that these penalties are not in line with actual murder statutes.

My point, exactly. Laws restricting abortion completely to cases of incest or rape or forbidding it entirely ARE based on a particular faction of a particular religion's religious views. The exceptions in the case of incest and rape could possibly be seen as the same sort of exemptions for killing someone in the case of self defense, never mind that they are not really analogous.

Abortion is murder is a religious and emotional argument codified into law, not one based upon any real science at all.

 

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

You are making a category error. Some jurisdictions might define 'murder' as an act or omission that deliberately ends a human life. Under that definition, there would be nothing 'religious' about calling abortion 'murder', because human fetuses are presumably human and alive.

But that's not the point. A jurisdiction can make abortion illegal without invoking any religious belief, just as murder is illegal without invoking any religious belief.

And, as I have already said, you would not support religious exemptions from laws you agree with. So don't be a hypocrite and support them when you don't agree with the law.

Calling people names makes you look bad, in terms of character and also in terms of your ability to reason well. I believe it's against the TOU as well particularly when it's used repeatedly to attempt to goad someone.

Human melanoma is also alive and is also human and no court or law would prohibit removing and killing melanoma.

There are always exceptions to prosecution for murder when it is considered an act of self defense. Abortion is indeed self defense.

You are the one who is citing religious exceptions, not I. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal up until the point of reasonable viability and that at that point, restrictions may be applied but abortion cannot be forbidden.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People that believe ending their pregnancy early being wrong are not forced to have an abortion. They don't need an exemption because it isn't remotely forced on anyone. The people's rights being trampled are those that want, need to end a pregnancy. Why in the heck aren't we asking about their religious exemptions?!

 

[Elixir]

People that believe ending their pregnancy early being wrong are not forced to have an abortion. They don't need an exemption because it isn't remotely forced on anyone. The people's rights being trampled are those that want, need to end a pregnancy. Why in the heck aren't we asking about their religious exemptions?!

There are a couple of cases out there right now...

A judge ruling in a lawsuit filed in September by the ACLU of Indiana has blocked the new restrictions from going into effect pending resolution of the ACLU’s claim that the law violates the state’s constitution. But it is a second ACLU lawsuit that is of interest to us here. Filed on behalf of Hoosier Jews for Choice and five anonymous plaintiffs of different faiths, it argues that the near-ban on abortion also violates the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which then-Gov. Mike Pence signed into law in 2015.

And

Silver’s progressive synagogue, Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor in Palm Beach County, sued the state of Florida in June, arguing that the anti-abortion law infringes on religious liberty.

Eventually the Supreme Corruption Of The United States will have to decide whether to make its religion the State religion, or to honor the separation of church and State.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anti-LGBTQ leader put on the spot by CNN host for flipping out over being booted from a Virginia restaurant

On Saturday morning, CNN host Michael Smerconish put the head of a rightwing group hostile to the rights of the LGTQ community on the spot as she whined that she and her colleagues were refused service at a Virginia restaurant over their views -- while at the same defending the rights of Christian businesspeople refusing to work with same-sex couples.

This incident is comparable to the test case before SCOTUS. It doesn't discriminate against an entire class of people. It more or less just discriminates against the discriminators.

 

[TomC]

This incident is comparable to the test case before SCOTUS. It doesn't discriminate against an entire class of people. It more or less just discriminates against the discriminators.

In the spirit of nuanced contrarianism,

Do the people who think the restaurant had the right to do this think that the Colorado baker had the right to refuse to produce a trans celebration cake?

Personally, I think everyone involved here are jerks. Phillips and Scardina, restaurant and Christian group, they're all self indulgent bigots.
The question is, " does one flavor of self indulgent bigotry get protected over another?"
Tom

 

[Rhea]

It is often the tactic of those who would set up an unequal society, especially one cleaving to religious extremes, to claim Principle A to restrict rights in one direction on issue A, and Principle B to restrict rights in another direction on Issue B.


Then their opponents (those who support civil rights) say, ”let’s see how Principles A and B look together on Issue A - oh, it shows your stand on issue A is wrong, even by your own standards.”

And the extremists and those who argue the case for the extremists say, “you said you opposed Principle B! You hypocrite! Ad hom Ad hom Ad hom!” and thereby try to turn the conversation away from the refuted Issue A, and make it all about the ad hom.


One can see Metaphor trying this tactic, above.


But it remains that Toni’s demonstration that their abortion bans are wrong even by the principles that the banners themselves hold, is accurate. Toni comparing their priciples to their arguments of course does not make her a hypocrite. But the ad hom directed against her to distract from the soundness of her argument does indeed highlight the paucity of the argument against her points. One can attack the argument, or one can prove one is unable by attacking the character of the person Instead.

 

[Metaphor]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

You are making a category error. Some jurisdictions might define 'murder' as an act or omission that deliberately ends a human life. Under that definition, there would be nothing 'religious' about calling abortion 'murder', because human fetuses are presumably human and alive.

But that's not the point. A jurisdiction can make abortion illegal without invoking any religious belief, just as murder is illegal without invoking any religious belief.

And, as I have already said, you would not support religious exemptions from laws you agree with. So don't be a hypocrite and support them when you don't agree with the law.

Calling people names makes you look bad, in terms of character and also in terms of your ability to reason well. I believe it's against the TOU as well particularly when it's used repeatedly to attempt to goad someone.

I haven't called you names; I've asked you to examine your beliefs and avoid hypocrisy.

Human melanoma is also alive and is also human and no court or law would prohibit removing and killing melanoma.

There are always exceptions to prosecution for murder when it is considered an act of self defense. Abortion is indeed self defense.

You are the one who is citing religious exceptions, not I. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal up until the point of reasonable viability and that at that point, restrictions may be applied but abortion cannot be forbidden.

In what universe am I suggesting there should be religious exceptions to abortion prohibition laws? You're the one suggesting that.

Whether abortion is 'murder' depends on how a jurisdiction has defined 'murder'. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

Whether abortion is made a crime depends on whether a jurisdiction has made it a crime. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.