• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
“Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”
Click to expand...

Well that is one way to look at it.

Stacyhs said:
"Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
Click to expand...

I agree, faith is not scientific.


Stacyhs said:
Not formally because they knew that would get it overturned. They're much more subtle than that. But the anti-choice movement is lead by religious people. I don't think you can deny that.
Click to expand...

I do not deny that it is led by religious people and many are in the movement due to their religious beliefs

Stacyhs said:
Bryan Hughes is the TX state senator behind the new abortion law. It was his bill. Let's take a look at Hughes' FB page and see if we can figure out if he's influenced by his faith:
Click to expand...

Well he either is religious or wants to be seen that way by potential votes(I think religion is popular in that part of the country). There is certainly a high chance that he has let his religious views justice his stance on abortion.


Stacyhs said:
I never said they don't have the right to "attempt to spread their religion" through free speech. But I DO have a problem with them trying to force their religiously based ideas on me through legislation. Which is exactly what these abortion restrictive laws are. So were the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, "blue laws", inter-racial marriage, and several sex acts occurring between consenting adults related laws .
Click to expand...

In that quote, I was only talking about those that knock on your door and attempt to convert you. I oppose forcing religion via legislation, that should not happen in a free country. I was against blue laws and laws prohibiting same sex marriage. These are things that hurt no one, so I don't think it is anyone's business to tell businesses not to do business on Sundays and tell gays that they can't marry. I do agree churches should have the right to not marry gays if they believe it to be a sin, but gays should still have the right to get married by judges and whatnot and churches are okay with gay marriage.

I believe a phrase my father taught me years ago. You have the right to swing your arm until it hits the other guy in the face. Gay marriage and doing business on Sundays doesn't hit anyone in the face. But it can be argued that abortion does hit someone in the face: the fetus/zygote/embryo.
 
Warbler said:
Faith isn't about evidence.
Click to expand...

Not quite

Faith is about believing without evidence!

Warbler said:
We don't know scientifically whether or not there is a heaven. (unless you can prove scientifically that heaven does not exist)
Click to expand...

Nope, that is reversing the burden or proof - the world of facts and science does not work like that.

Its not "heaven exists unless you can prove it doesn't"

Its "heaven doesn't exist unless you can prove it does"

Warbler said:
I don't force my beliefs on anyone else.
Click to expand...

But you believe in limiting abortions, and you support those who do limit abortions, therefore, it follows logically that you support those who force your beliefs on others.
 
smartcooky said:
Not quite

Faith is about believing without evidence!



Nope, that is reversing the burden or proof - the world of facts and science does not work like that.

Its not "heaven exists unless you can prove it doesn't"

Its "heaven doesn't exist unless you can prove it does"



But you believe in limiting abortions, and you support those who do limit abortions, therefore, it follows logically that you support those who force your beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

This,
People have no right to enforce their religious beliefs by legislation.
And since outlawing abortion is based on a religious belief....that a fetus has a soul...outlawing abortion is forcing your pure religious beliefs on others.
If some one knocks at my door to try to convert me I can slam the door in their face and tell them to go to hell. You can't do that with a law.
 
Warbler said:
Well that is one way to look at it.



I agree, faith is not scientific.




I do not deny that it is led by religious people and many are in the movement due to their religious beliefs



Well he either is religious or wants to be seen that way by potential votes(I think religion is popular in that part of the country). There is certainly a high chance that he has let his religious views justice his stance on abortion.




In that quote, I was only talking about those that knock on your door and attempt to convert you. I oppose forcing religion via legislation, that should not happen in a free country. I was against blue laws and laws prohibiting same sex marriage. These are things that hurt no one, so I don't think it is anyone's business to tell businesses not to do business on Sundays and tell gays that they can't marry. I do agree churches should have the right to not marry gays if they believe it to be a sin, but gays should still have the right to get married by judges and whatnot and churches are okay with gay marriage.

I believe a phrase my father taught me years ago. You have the right to swing your arm until it hits the other guy in the face. Gay marriage and doing business on Sundays doesn't hit anyone in the face. But it can be argued that abortion does hit someone in the face: the fetus/zygote/embryo.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not necessarily. An atheist can oppose abortion on moral/ethical principles that have nothing to do with a soul or a supreme being.
Click to expand...

Such individuals are rarer than Rocking Horse **** !

The only atheists that are likley to oppose abortion would be politicians who know that doing so is politically advantageous to them
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
It's possible but they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by the religiously based anti-choice groups.
Click to expand...
Or by vocal atheistic pro-choice groups.

Of course, if you believe that a foetus is a human being then you would have to conclude that abortion is murder. (That might be a motivating factor behind an atheist's opposition to abortion). That is why so much energy in this thread is devoted to denying that a zygote/embryo/foetus is remotely human (OOPS! A human being) even though it is mostly about how we define a human being.
 
psionl0 said:
Or by vocal atheistic pro-choice groups.

Of course, if you believe that a foetus is a human being then you would have to conclude that abortion is murder. (That might be a motivating factor behind an atheist's opposition to abortion). That is why so much energy in this thread is devoted to denying that a zygote/embryo/foetus is remotely human (OOPS! A human being) even though it is mostly about how we define a human being.
Click to expand...

Please define "being" in this context.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Please define "being" in this context.
Click to expand...
Why? So you can say I used the wrong dictionary?

Some would say that as long as there is a motherly attachment/dependency the foetus is not a human being. Of course if I point out that this logically means that up until the time the umbilical cord is cut the foetus is not a human being I get accused of not being serious.
 
For the pro-life posters:

If the state is going to force women to carry children to term against their will do you agree that the state then also should be responsible for those children?

So as long as the mother is pregnant state covered healthcare, the state arranges a stable and loving family to adopt the child and checks that this remains the case until the child is 18?
Combined with state-sponsored education?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
For the pro-life posters:

If the state is going to force women to carry children to term against their will do you agree that the state then also should be responsible for those children?

So as long as the mother is pregnant state covered healthcare, the state arranges a stable and loving family to adopt the child and checks that this remains the case until the child is 18?
Combined with state-sponsored education?
Click to expand...
I am more pro-choice than pro-life but this appears reasonable at first glance.

The problem comes if the woman decides to keep the baby once it is born rather than give it up for adoption after all.
- Should the state force the mother to carry through with the adoption?
- If not, does the state still have an extra responsibility for the baby? (It still denied her the abortion option initially).
- What's to stop a woman from declaring she doesn't want the child just so that she can get extra state aid when she "changes" her mind?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Or by vocal atheistic pro-choice groups.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Of course, if you believe that a foetus is a human being then you would have to conclude that abortion is murder. (That might be a motivating factor behind an atheist's opposition to abortion). That is why so much energy in this thread is devoted to denying that a zygote/embryo/foetus is remotely human (OOPS! A human being) even though it is mostly about how we define a human being.
Click to expand...

You've beaten that dead horse long enough. Do you think it's going to get up now run?
 
Susheel said:
Maybe you can cross that bridge when it turns up on your path.
Click to expand...
Creating new laws and not considering if there are any undesirable consequences until it is too late is bad governance and we should be getting rid of politicians who do such knee jerk legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom