Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,984
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I haven't called you names; I've asked you to examine your beliefs and avoid hypocrisy.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.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.You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
In what universe am I suggesting there should be religious exceptions to abortion prohibition laws? You're the one suggesting that.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.
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.
You are incorrect: making abortion illegal has its entire basis on religious beliefs of a particular minority. It is not based upon science or sound medical practice. The foundation is entirely religious and is predicated on the belief that women are sinful and their only valid reasons for existence is motherhood, rearing children and making men's lives easier and more pleasant. Her own life has no real value outside of those uses or the worship of God. THAT is the core of the prohibition against abortion.I haven't called you names; I've asked you to examine your beliefs and avoid hypocrisy.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.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.You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
In what universe am I suggesting there should be religious exceptions to abortion prohibition laws? You're the one suggesting that.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.
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.
It is not my problem that you refuse to recognize that fact.
Other religious or areligious POV hold that the woman's life and her health are of value and she has the right to terminate a pregnancy. Some POV even go so far as to believe that she has a duty to terminate a pregnancy under some circumstances. It is an absolute violation of these religious beliefs, including areligious belief, that is being violated by the ban on abortions.
Even if abortion bans were not based upon religious beliefs of any religious group (in this case, some sects of Christianity) a law can violate a person's religious beliefs which, in the US is unconstitutional. Examples would include compelling military service for those who oppose war and compelling blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious sects that prohibit such. Those are only a couple of examples.
Perhaps you need to examine your own thought processes and your own motivations for calling me names.