Abortion

[Tom Mazanec]

BB, I am a technophile, but technology can be abused. As for forcing a religion (or ideology), that is what all laws do. You are trying to force your atheistic ideology on Christians who believe in protecting preborn humans.

[Bob Butler]

BB, I am a technophile, but technology can be abused.

Yes, technology can be abused. Assault rifles, for example. It is just that there is so much disagreement on what is abuse. Weapons are protected by the Second Amendment, but there is no similar protection I can think of for medical stuff.

As for forcing a religion (or ideology), that is what all laws do. You are trying to force your atheistic ideology on Christians who believe in protecting preborn humans.

Once again, no one is forcing the religious fanatics. They are quite free to worship God as they please, to follow their own doctrines. They are forcing their beliefs on others, no one is forcing them. You keep lying on this point.

Also all laws do not enforce religious doctrine on unbelievers. In fact, name a law that does not involve abortion that does? Given religious freedom, I'm doubtful. Laws are more likely to be concerned with murder and theft. It is proverbial that possession is seven points out of eleven of the law. Federally, it is unconstitutional to recognize any religion, and enforcing religious doctrines is not an enumerated power of Congress.

We have no hope of any sort of resolution if you keep spouting lies. That you have to resort to such obvious lies seems to indicate you can't argue based on truth.

[Bob Butler]

Seems like a lot of the anger directed at the RC church on this board is by Catholics (or ex-Catholics).

They know best how the Church is supposed to behave. I suspect the non Catholics are dismissive of the Church anyway.

[Guest]

Seems like a lot of the anger directed at the RC church on this board is by Catholics (or ex-Catholics).

They know best how the Church is supposed to behave. I suspect the non Catholics are dismissive of the Church anyway.

I think you're right. I'm not Catholic. I have grown up reading nothing but horror stories about sexual abuse by priests (and nuns) and now expect this kind of behavior from them. I want nothing to do with the Catholic church. If Catholics want to through their children into the pedophile meat grinder, it is their fault. They have been warned. Yes, I think the angry voices belong mostly to the Catholic victims of these monstrous clerics.

[guest]

FBI Internal Memo Warns against ‘Radical Traditionalist Catholic Ideology’

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi ... -ideology/

Kyle Seraphin, who was a special agent at the bureau for six years before he was indefinitely suspended without pay in June 2022, published the document, “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities

[Tom Mazanec]

BB, laws against murder are enforcing "Thou shall not kill." That is a Commandment (one of the Top Ten). Just one example. Every law is enforcing some value, which is based on some ideology or religion. Prove mathematically that murder is wrong.

Pro-choicers are trying to enforce their ideology on the country. Saying a Pro-lifer is free to practice his beliefs as long as he does not enforce it on a woman who wishes to abort is akin to saying an abolitionist is free to practice his beliefs as long as he does not impose them on a slaveholder.

[Bob Butler]

BB, laws against murder are enforcing "Thou shall not kill." That is a Commandment (one of the Top Ten). Just one example. Every law is enforcing some value, which is based on some ideology or religion. Prove mathematically that murder is wrong.

I would rather say a fetus is not sapient, as did the ancient Jews. The word 'sapient' is missing from the Commandment, but seems implied. Most people kill non sapient things freely, and that principle could be considered universal. Define sapient by saying the fetus has a property such as 'uses reason' or 'uses full language' and show a fetus had developed that property in the first two trimesters and other animals such as meat animals that are often killed have not.

I would suggest that three of the Ten Commandments are secular, that laws against them can reasonably be enforced by a secular government. These would be against killing, theft and lying. Of these, theft and lying seem irrelevant to a fetus in the first two trimesters. The other Commandments are religious, family, or coveting, not included in the enumerated powers of congress, and not relevant.

Pro-choicers are trying to enforce their ideology on the country. Saying a Pro-lifer is free to practice his beliefs as long as he does not enforce it on a woman who wishes to abort is akin to saying an abolitionist is free to practice his beliefs as long as he does not impose them on a slaveholder.

Slaveholders were oppressing the slaves. Pro Life people are trying to oppress women. King George III, Hitler and Putin oppressed too. Pro Choice people are not oppressing anyone. The ability to control and oppress another culture or group is not guaranteed by anything.

[Tom Mazanec]

Pro-life people are oppressing people in the womb. People in the womb are only not reasoning for a few years. People asleep are not reasoning for a few hours. The timescale is irrelevant. Why can you not understand what I am saying? I suspect it is because you do not want to.

[Bob Butler]

Pro-life people are oppressing people in the womb. People in the womb are only not reasoning for a few years. People asleep are not reasoning for a few hours. The timescale is irrelevant. Why can you not understand what I am saying? I suspect it is because you do not want to.

Of course I have an opinion. Are you trying to say you do not after lying and repeating yourself endlessly?

Thou shalt not kill sapients. A fetus in the first two trimesters is not sapient. Period.

[Bob Butler]

On the theology / Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life thread, an account is given from the India / Krishna point of view. At one point she goes into how when you read or chant something from the tradition, it feels cool. Um. No. That isn’t my tradition. It doesn’t feel overly cool to me. Now, I was once upon a time a Catholic. I still feel an empathy with ‘love thy neighbor’. That does still feel cool, as clearly as I can see the flaws of the Church. In the secular version of it, it meshes with the Democratic position. Provide help for those in need. I’m not crazy wild about it, but it is part of how I see folk ought to be, how they should behave.

So I see where Tom Mazanec might be coming from. He has what seems to be a religious doctrine which is akin to chanting Krishna or loving one’s neighbor. This is what one is supposed to be, how one is supposed to behave. Any religion will have a worldview attached. If you buy into it, it is going to seem irrationally fine, how one is supposed to be. If you don’t buy into it, that will be missing. And making one switch generally doesn’t happen. It is proverbial that you don’t talk politics or religion. One doesn’t expect to change somebody else’s worldview. That feeling it is correct to chant Krishna, love one’s neighbor or preserve certain cells is deep down set.

Which might be well enough for these religious worldviews. When they apply on how the worshiper believes, that is pretty much harmless. Should one try to force it on another, not so fine, wonderful and harmless.

Non religious worldviews? When Britain felt colonial imperialism and noble privilege was fine to force on the Americans? When the slaveowners thought to impose their racism on the slaves? When Hitler tried to control the Jews, gypsies, slavs, etc? I am becoming convinced that forcing one’s own point of view on another is not a good thing, to perhaps be forgiven only if the other guy is forcing his view on others.

Consider it a hidden corollary and aspect of turning theory, of Strauss and Howe, of Generational Dynamics, the attitude towards the other. It is a human instinct to force one’s worldview on others. This is present in every crisis. Everyone is loyal to their culture, be it religious or secular. They will try to force it on others, the other will not want to be forced, and you end up with a crisis. In the Agricultural Age the forcing was common, was the usual. In the Industrial and Information Ages, especially in the west, the usual result was successful resistance to being forced. Independence. Freedom. Choice.

This is a mighty big sledgehammer to be bringing into the Abortion debate, but choice is a big deal after all. If turning theory is part of my personal worldview, of how I view the world, trying to take away free choice is akin to chanting Krishna, loving one’s neighbor, freeing the slaves or saving a fetus. Worldviews do not change lightly. Your worldview must totally fail before you consider changing it. Seriously thinking you are going to change someones worldview is irrational.

Just be careful if you are trying to do that, to take away choice. In the Industrial and Information Ages, especially in the west, the faction that has tried to take away choice gets in trouble in a crisis.