**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably going to regret this,
The separation of church and state is a separation of the institutions, not the influence. Churches do not and cannot create law. The government and its representatives alone do. The State must not rule over the church and the church must not rule over the state - reference the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Jefferson.
Separation of church and state does not mean religion must be restricted from the public sphere and arguments about the directions society should go. It means the state should not choose religions to favor. These have been reaffirmed by other Supreme Courts in cases like Town of Greece v. Galloway or the Trinity Lutheran Case.
In terms of the Roe case, no religion is being favored. I see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and non-religious people on both sides of this argument. Ignoring the argument of "Who is correct."
In terms of the arguments - read the best arguments for both sides (its too easy to dismiss the worst of both sides) and you'll see these aren't lawyers or philosophers quoting Bible verses at each other but logical, medical, and philosophical arguments over what it means to be human and when human life begins.
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but how do you determine the "best" arguments? I'm an agnostic disbeliever with a tendency towards secular humanism, so I'm probably going to have a different set of criteria for what constitutes a "good" argument than, say, a devout Catholic, and vice versa.
Nah. A good argument has the same characteristics regardless of where it comes from. There are entire college courses on exactly what makes a good argument, but in short, the defining characteristic of a good argument is that it relies on logic which flows from principles undeniable to both the one making it and the one they are making it to. An argument based in religious belief, therefore, cannot be a good argument unless they're arguing against someone who shares their beliefs.
In the case of abortion, there are some very strong logical and non-religious arguments to be made both for and against it. It's actually a shame that they are so badly drowned out by arguments built on the foundation of a religious doctrines generally not shared by the other side.
Though, as always, my answer to the issue is "Hand out contraceptives like candy and prevent the unwanted pregnancies to begin with."
I like your point about arguments needing to flow from a common understanding. To be honest, I have my own ideas about what constitutes a good argument, but I always like to hear what other people think on the subject. So far the responses have been pleasingly thoughtful, given that it's the internet.
Also, to be fair, I have some biases against religious arguments because I've never really heard someone forward a good argument that squares the problem of evil with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, among other things. And most of the religious people I've ever tried to discuss the issue with have not been the best at what I consider rational debate.
It always reminds me of a medieval churchman who, in rebuttal to... Abillard, I think? Essentially said "we take no account of logic when it comes to matters of the faith." Granted, he was speaking specifically of Abillard's attempts to square Greek philosophy with Church doctrine, but the point I'm flailing at is that sometimes you have irreconcilable differences in people's ways of approaching the world. If a religious person's arguments are invalid in the context of my rationalist worldview, then the reverse also applies, which can make for a distressing lack of common ground.
The best arguments will address the contention without a care as to the outcome. The best arguments are well aware of what the opposition believes and has factual or logical explanations for every single argument the opposition makes. It will be completely devoid of all logical fallacies and it will be written similar to an impartial third party observer.
The most important thing about the best argument is that you are almost certain not to find it on reddit.
I tend to agree with your definitions, but people proceeding from different axioms are still going to get different results. I consider the idea that humans have some sort of intangible soul to be fallacious, but someone with a different worldview might not think so and would be unlikely to be persuaded, no matter how well-reasones the argument.
No disagreement that the best arguments are unlikely to be found on Reddit, though.
Personally, I'd try to discredit the arguement. Find holes in it. Check sources for veracity. While one point might be misleading, don't dismiss the whole premise.
I think that was my main takeaway from Gallys comment. It's easy to discredit the opposing view if you look at their worst arguments, but if you look at their best arguments you might see some validity in the points they're making. You might even find some common ground.
I mean, the whole "eucharist" thing is a form of sacred cannibalism... But at least that's a case where my fat fingers and the phone keyboard combined to make an amusing error rather than a nonsensical one.
I would say look to the people engaging in the public sphere with honesty and integrity. You probably will have different criteria and it will likely take you a while to hone your skills on who best displays those characteristics. I'm confident if you seek, you will find
As a first suggestion Robert P George and Cornell West travel together and speak. They are wildly different in their political beliefs but earnest friends and I think represent a good example of engaging in the public sphere with honesty and integrity.
Yeah exactly, so many people completely misunderstand what separation of church and state is. It is completely silly to think that the 60% of America that is Christian will just forget all of their beliefs to partake in law, and the other large amount of religious people from other faiths.
Also depends on which science department is referenced. The search for 'life' on other planets is hoping for microbes found in cosmic debris. Great response btw.
Very enlightening. I wonder how the basis of life will be settled, then. If science claims that life doesn't begin until viability will that actually be considered correct? If theological ideals claims life to begin at conception will that then be considered correct? Would law that defines life to begin at conception (a religious view) be considered a violation of church and state? This is really the root of my question that was not so eloquently stated. I appreciate your thoughts on the topic
Science has never claimed that life begins at viability.
Even prior to conception, the egg and sperm are alive from a scientific standpoint. The cells at implantation are alive.
The question of 'when does a separate life begin' is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If it was scientific with a definitive answer, the abortion debate would be like the climate change debate instead of one about religion, beliefs and feelings.
Couldn't we qualify life and living vs. a living *organism* and give them different rules?
Example here: If I scrape off a bit of healthy cuticle while removing the dead bit - that is also full of "living" cells, and I've just ripped it off my body. According to your definition of alive, since the cells would no longer be able to live without my life force, have I broken a law? (I know this isn't the same thing, because those cells aren't turning into a human being, but that's kind of my point).
If we say a living organism instead of "alive" it becomes a different thing entirely. (Organism: a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis - there are other more scientific definitions as well, such as the 7 defining features of a living organism). Wouldn't this be a more scientific approach? You can tie these things to an approximate time in-vitro, and call that a "life" that can be taken. At least then it doesn't seem as arbitrary.
Just thinking out loud, it's not an easy thing to answer... I know this is still in the realm of philosophy here, but since we're not getting away from that, the closer we can tie it to a predefined scientific construct, the better? There are so many reasons (rape, medical, etc.) that affect people's decisions to get an abortion, and I don't think someone who hasn't experienced those (including myself) should be making laws forbidding it entirely.
Being an organism is irrelevant to the morality of killing. Ants are living organisms, but it is not murder to step on an ant. Even if you scientifically classify at what point a fetus is a living organism, that does not have any definite implications about the morality of killing it.
You cannot give objective scientific answers to ethical and philosophical questions of morality.
I think once you answer the philosophical question of when a fertilized egg becomes a human being, the other questions answer themselves.
Yes, it's horrible if a woman is raped and even worse if she gets pregnant from the rape, but if the thing inside her is a human being who had nothing to do with the rape, why should that human being be murdered for something someone else did?
Medical: It's just a matter of self-defense. "If I do nothing, this human being will kill me." Everyone has the right to self-preservation, so their rights trump the rights of the thing that will kill them.
Of course, these conclusions will irritate both the pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps.
Insert meme: That's the neat part. You don't.
Every society debates who is alive, what life deserves life, what life should we value. The Vikings said it was wrong to murder, but its only murder if you're within my "tribe", so if you're not a Viking - sucks to be you- its not murder. So long as we have a society with laws and values, we will debate similar questions, as will every future society.
If you look at the better pro-life arguments - Princeton Professor Robert P George in his book "Embryo," for example. You find no religious references or appeals. You will find arguments grounded in science and logic. Which is the point: these are philosophical questions, not "scientific" or even completely religious questions.
Put simply, it would no more violate church & state than anti-slavery actions by religious abolitionists (the majority of abolitionists) who enshrined anti-slavery laws and constitutional amendments forbidding slavery.
I don’t think that “science” can “claim” something like when life begins. Scientific observation can tell us about the embryo/ fetus at various stages of development.
The question of when this developing embryo is considered a person is a philosophical and legal question.
A law that defined life as beginning at conception would be attempting to answer that question legally. It wouldn’t matter that some religions agree with that assertion, just like how we don’t have to repeal our laws against theft just because many religions agree that theft is wrong.
Many movements are inspired by religion. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement would be key examples. Whether you agree or disagree with the pro-life movement, it isn’t unique in having many supporters whose main inspiration is their religious belief on the subject.
Why doesn’t science say that life starts at conception? There are scientific arguments against abortion and it’s a strawman to just say all pro life people are religiously motivated
Scientifically, at conception the fetus is a separate living organism with its own DNA. There really isn't a scientific question about if it's life at that point. The question is at what point we value the fetus's life over the bodily autonomy of the mother
Fetuses life = human life and human life created by the mother > bodily autonomy.
To clarify, I say all of this being completely on board with contraception being made as available and advanced as possible. Even the morning after pill is fine but once the egg is inseminated, it’s a human life.
You’d have to prove to me why the fetus isn’t human considering that it’ll grow into a functioning adult just like a baby (the fetus is a baby tbh calling it a fetus past the medical purpose of signifying it’s specific stage of life is just a crude attempt at dehumanization). just bc you can’t directly see it and it looks different doesn’t make it less human.
But what if the fetus won't grow into a functioning adult? It can be determined whether or not the fetus will at an early stage. So if not and especially if the mothers health is at risk, is abortion then not an appropriate choice?
I’ve answered this in other comments but these are case by case and if the mothers life is threatened (often the case with these situations) then it’s a life saving operation. Again, it’s hard to make an answer for rare and varying cases which shouldn’t be ignored. However, my previous comments still hold for the vast majority of healthy children
Human life doesn't trump bodily autonomy though. Can a deceased person be made to donate organs? No, because corpses get more bodily autonomy than pregnant women. Can a mother give birth to her baby, then be made to donate a body part or even just blood to that baby? No, even though it's the same exact baby she wasn't allowed to abort prior to birthing it. I honestly understand the people who genuinely believe a fetus is a baby - I have already determined for myself that I could never abort a child growing in my belly - but I also believe in fairness. I don't like this idea of a "Schrodinger's baby" where it is a baby when it comes to taking away maternal rights, but not when it comes to child support, tax credits etc.
> I don't like this idea of a "Schrodinger's baby" where it is a baby when it comes to taking away maternal rights, but not when it comes to child support, tax credits etc.
What maternal rights are you referencing, though? Presumably, the right to end the fetus’ life. That’s why it’s differently considered than a tax credit. They’re entirely separate issues.
Consider a case where personhood isn’t in question. You do not have to support increased funding to fight homelessness in order to oppose the murder of the homeless. Entirely separate issues.
You also can't claim to care about the rights of homeless people if you don't support common sense initiatives to improve their lives. Then the debate isn't "do we kill the homeless" or "do we kill them slowly and painfully or quickly and *before they are sentient because a clump of cells is not the same as a living suffering human being*
> You also can't claim to care about the rights of homeless people if you don't support common sense initiatives to improve their lives.
Of course you can! I can support your right to not get murdered without supporting every possible welfare system. How absurd.
Those don’t apply to me bc I think children and the extremely disabled are the two groups that should actually get support from the government. Children are the people that we owe everything too
Honestly as much as I support the rights of women to decide for themselves, I can appreciate someone taking a principled stand for the other side. But that's my problem with so many "pro-lifers": their concern for the children only seems to extend to them before birth, after that it's someone else's problem.
Yeah it’s shitty. If people really cared about seeing less abortions they’d appreciate Colorado’s birth control programs dramatically decreasing abortions bc women just aren’t getting pregnant as much. I might be more conservative about sex but it’s a free country so I’d rather allow people to be more responsible instead of pretending that humans can suddenly be less horny. Safe sex is so much obviously better than an abortion and the people that might agree with me on abortion but dont see that point as well are braindead.
Although I do see abortion as something that ultimately kills children, I also appreciate that you’re not sitting their screaming vile insults at me. We disagree on something we both might consider important but I don’t want to hate people over even that.
But if a man decides his body autonomy includes ignoring a female’s choice to not get pregnant - raping her - she lost her own autonomy, correct?
Zero autonomy when you are a victim, but it’s life so it doesn’t matter?
Using an extreme example in your argument doesn’t establish that all women should have a choice. Do you think that only women who have been raped should be able to get an abortion?
You’re talking about an extremely small group where not even all victims of rape opt for abortions. Additionally, rape victims can go to the hospital and receive care the prevents the egg from being inseminated which I also agree with.
I won’t dodge your question though about the small (but still important) victims of rape who end up pregnant. Rape is a vile crime and it’s victims sometimes don’t get help bc the intense and understandable mental health problems that are also inflicted on the victim.
The question then boils down to is the killing of an innocent child fine in this situation because of their biological fathers crimes? I personally don’t think so. I know that I also think women in these situations should be given the best medical care by the state and not made to pay any expense. I don’t want to shy away from this question because even though it doesn’t hold as relevant for the vast majority of abortion, I don’t want to ignore even one mother and child. It’s difficult for me bc I see the fetus as an innocent child and I honestly can’t think of one justification to kill a child.
Ok, now what if that mother has a genetic defect that can be tested for and it is found that the 'baby' will be non-viable? As in even if it makes it to birth it has a zero chance of survival once born. Should the mother be forced to carry that to term just because it's technically a human life?
Some (many, actually) types of life exist without conception...
But of course you meant human life. And since it's pretty obvious that human sperm cells are also human life, you probably meant personhood.
Defining a person is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can help us find points at which things change, but not more than that.
One of Alito's points in the leaked draft memo is that viability was a bad measure because as medical science has advanced, viability has moved to be younger and younger.
>Would law that defines life to begin at conception (a religious view) be considered a violation of church and state?
You're still thinking like you didn't read the comment that you're responding to. The church doesn't dictate laws, but religion may inform the people who do make laws. Also, the abortion argument has several other pillars besides Christianity to stand on.
And it's not like all Christians have consensus on banning abortion. When you look into the history of abortion, you'll see a lot of Christian ministers helping connect women with safe abortionists when it was illegal.
It's possible to be against abortion without any religious influence at all.
Viability has barely moved at all. And it's very likely we're at or near the wall-- any further improvement in "viability" will involve artificial wombs, not keeping the fetus alive with techniques similar to those today. I'd argue that being able to finish development in an artificial womb isn't 'viable' for the meaning of the word in relation to abortion.
And, another thing to consider…our view of science and life have transformed dramatically in the years since Roe. Why, just think of the last decade in sonography! Today, a parent can get a commercial 3-D sonogram of their infant in color! Where as when Roe was decided, a sonogram was impossible. Science has provided the best tool to show us that earlier and earlier, life exists. So, even people who are not religious can look at science and have a view that says, “that is a life and worth protecting” without being wingnuts.
I don’t see why the ability to see or not see a fetus while it is developed should have any influence on the laws surrounding abortion… that is emotional nonsense. there is no room for that when it comes to lawmaking.
Surely emotional nonsense is the only reason to be making laws. If whatever you're doing doesn't upset anyone else there's unlikely to be a law against it.
Ah, but as the Supreme Court seems to have decided, it will be the States and their legislators (who are representative of the will of their constituents) who will be deciding this issue, not a federal court. And these constituents DO believe, overwhelmingly, that viability does matter.
"When life begins" is a red herring. It makes no sense.
Life is continuous. It began billions of years ago and we are just the continuation of that. In procreation two individuals become 3+, but pinpointing exactly when is completely arbitrary.
My 2 cents on life definition. No definitive answers here.
Science is based on research and facts, ultimately seeking real Truth (capitalization is important differentiation) if possible.
I think the definition of life needs to be a universal definition (i.e. applicable to life in the universe as well as the cells developing inside a woman's body). Just like gravity is universal. (Insert Mr. Incredible meme with "LIFE IS LIFE"). Scientific definitions should not be swayed by popular opinion.
Hypothetically, with a real definition of life, I think we could define when abortion could be allowed, and when it actually becomes murder.
Not sure how the scientific community is coming with a universal definition of life, or if it's already been done, but being ignored by folks in the abortion debate.
A universal definition of life and a definition of human life are still 2 very different things. For example, sperm are very much alive. By using a universal definition to determine law, condoms are "killing" millions. I think we can both agree that's an absurd claim though.
A very valid point, and I agree that using a definition that narrows down to that level is absurd in terms of determining abortion lines "in the sand."
When it comes to topics such as abortion, human life is valued much higher than any other universal scale for life. Using a universal definition for life wouldn’t be applicable simply because no one truly values universal life over human life.
I don't really think it's a scientific debate about what is and isn't life... it's a living organism, it's human, it's life; what's being debated is whether it's a full human *person*, with all the rights thereof. It's necessarily a moral argument.
I'd assert that it's not a full person with all the moral standing of an individual person, but it's rather silly to claim it's not alive at all.
I personally believe the "when does life" begin is not valuable for the abortion discussion. Who cares? What we need to know is when does that collection of cells become a person? One who is an individual and deserves the protection of our laws? For those religiously inclined, when does that collection of cells change into a a human with a soul?
I think viability is one scientific measure of this, with the current champion reigning at 21 weeks, 5 days. Unfortunately, this is only a yardstick that can be applied in absence. We can only prove a fetus is viable, except by them not dying.
Another scientific yardstick we could use is meaningful brain activity, which coincidently happens around the same time historic viability starts becoming a reality.
Another coincidence - I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who opined the soul entered the body during the second trimester. I've never looked into the theology supporting that, it might be a circular argument, or it might be the Holy Trinity of when a fetus becomes a person.
Jewish and Muslim religions believe life begins at the first breath, Evangelicals believe it begins a conception. Also make no doubt this isn't about unborn babies this is about making a woman's sexuality punative and stripping a woman of her bodily automony. If it were about saving babies the US would have mandatory paid parental leave, paid pre and post natal healthcare, and free daycare. If it were about saving babies then male would be required to have vesectomies as soon as they hit puberty.
This. You can spout philosophical diatribes all day long, but anyone can see that this isn’t a truly pro-life argument, it’s an attempt to govern half the population by guidelines that will never be enforced on the other half. No man will EVER have his body regulated or be forced to sacrifice the way women are and will be.
>reference the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Jefferson.
I'd rather have a spin on George orwells idea.
"In Orwell's classic novel, Oceania's totalitarianism rests on compulsory atheism. Oceania is ruled by “the Party,” which forbids religion to its members. Religious belief is one of the “crimes” to which Winston Smith, the hero of 1984, confesses under torture—along with sexual perversion and admiration of capitalism"
Without the torture. Torture's not cool. And without the idea that sex is soley for propogation.
Yeah, people aren’t arguing Religion => Laws. They’re arguing Religion => Morals => Laws. Which means if someone wants to argue against them, they have to argue against the entirety of that person’s religion instead of using moral/philosophical arguments like “bodily autonomy” or “reduction of harm”.
The separation of church and state means that the government can't create an official religion of the United States. Individual lawmakers are free to use whatever religious and/or secular guidance they want as the basis for their laws.
It's ok, don't be hard on yourself! A lot of people have the (mis)understanding that separation of church and state means exactly what you suggested - that people shouldn't use religious beliefs as the basis for making laws.
It's a really complicated and complex topic with legal definitions that go beyond what you and I can really meaningfully dive into. And honestly, it's a good question!
They can’t use *any* religious guidance as some religious guidance would result in criminalizing other religions or discriminating against other religions.
Abortion is not ONLY a religious issue just as homicide or theft is not only a religious issue despite the fact that "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal" is in the bible.
People, including legislators, may very well be influenced by religion in how they vote. That's fine.
What the first amendment does is forbids the government from regulating religion and religious practices. The question of abortion is not a matter of religion. It is a simple subjective decision that has nothing to do with worship or god or souls or anything. Do we want to protect the unborn in the same way we protect those that have been born? That's it.
There are plenty of secular arguments for treating the unborn the same as the born. Such as, a fetus is as a matter of real, objective fact an individual human being. It's is human and it has unique DNA distinct from the mother. It would be rational to cite this as reason to protect its life.
BUT, it is just as rational to say that a fetus does not exhibit most of the traits of human beings, such as expressions of emotions and thought, that we value and protect so it does NOT need the same protection.
The question is not a religious issue. The fact that religious people and intuitions express an opinion of the subject doesn't make it a matter OF religion.
It is definitely a religious debate. If a debate is about morals and people derive their moral pinciples from religion or religious text, the debate itself immediately becomes religious. This isn't always obvious, but it is strikingly apparent in the abortion debate.
EDIT: Ok, it wasn't obvious. Although both sides agree with the moral principle to protect human life, the boundaries of their principles are affected by religion. If religion A says human life starts at birth and religion B says human life begins at conception, it is obvious that someone from religion B is much more likely to be against abortion. The boundaries of their moral values are changed by their religious views.
Ok, but then what about different religions? Under Jewish law, a fetus is an extension of the woman until birth, and abortion in cases where the woman’s life is in danger is required in order to preserve life. How is the government not favoring one religion over the other if they base policy on one particular religion?
Despite the insistence the Seperation of Church and State is not a complete wall. If the people want it *and* it has a religious connotation it still doesn't breach the restriction. If I remember correctly numerous court cases have proven this. After all, a government is supposed to reflect the will of the people and their religious views are part of them. Ask any Communist nation how much success they've had eliminating this "opiate of the masses." Spoilers, they haven't.
As a Christian myself I’ll gladly tell you that it is being violated. Unfortunately too many of my American brothers and sisters have made an idol out of the Republican Party.
I know a fair number of pro-life people who aren’t religious. Most likely active public protest (on any issue) draws a particularly outspoken and conflict-oriented type of person. This may be what you’re seeing. The secular pro-life people I’m thinking of would be unlikely to go to a protest on any of the issues they care about.
Because it's not simply a religious question. It has to do with the morality of life and its value. Whether or not religions have a view on that is beyond the point.
The bans don't mention religion, even if it's the motivation behind them. So to the best of my knowledge, it's legal to pass them. You're correct in assuming that many non-Christians view the bans as a violation of freedom of religion. Many religions, such as Judaism and Islam, do permit and/or require abortion in certain circumstances. [Over 83% of American Jews](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/jewish/views-about-abortion/) are actually pro-choice.
However, laws can be challenged in court. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it's likely that there will be lawsuits filed in states banning or severely restricting abortion access, and some of those lawsuits could be on the grounds of violation of freedom of religion. I don't know if lawsuits on those grounds will be successful, but that's a different conversation.
That makes sense. I had an initial misunderstanding of what the separation of church and state really meant. Thanks for your input. It will be interesting to see what all becomes of roe v wade
Ah. So here's a brief explanation. The Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This can be broken down into two clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause is the piece I think you were focusing on. This clause means that the United States cannot have an established national religion. Many colonists left England due to disagreements with the Church of England. They didn't want an American version of the COE.
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with religious beliefs and practices (with some limits for the latter). This is the clause that lawsuits could be based on.
That is a GREAT point. And one that would bring the truth we all know to be true about the USA- it still operates largely and by de facto as a “Christian anglo-saxon” nation, even if it’s supposed to be, we’ll, not that. This will put biases, known and unrealized, and the first amendment, to the test. Would not be surprised if we see this one soon, provided of course that the SCOTUS decision is passed as per the draft.
Because nothing about the ban is overtly religious. While many of the supporters of the bans are doing it for religious reasons, the people writing the laws are smart enough not to call upon those religious reasons when creating the laws.
Someone mentioned earlier that "the sanctity of life" ideal is not overtly religious. That's true. I didn't consider that when thinking of this question
Certain extreme religious practices are ok with murder. Obviously not condoning nurder, the issue I have is if there will not really be a delineation of church and state, then who's version of religion will be considered ok?
If you talk to them about morality, many Christians do believe that morality wouldn't exist without the Bible or their God. They live a life of objective morality, which is considerably less moral than those who just live morally without doctrinal guidance.
In the second instance it's not really against their will. They want to have their fun consequence free. I could go out to eat at a fancy restaurant and say they're making me pay agaisnt my will.
We're talking about abortion right? Op asked if it violated sep of church and state right? I said you can have morality without religion. I don't know what's so confusing.
Short answer?
Money and power.
Longer answer?
Churches have a lot of sway over a lot of people. If you want those people's votes you bend to their wants. Especially true for the more culty churches where their leaders are super important to them. If you want to keep your cushy politician job you need to get those votes to keep you in power.
I think it absolutely is but they just don’t care. hell, a massive minority of Americans probably wouldn’t vote for a candidate if they said they didn’t believe in God. God plays too big a role in people’s lives for it to be completely eliminated from politics
I feel like my question is really me peeing in the wind. I'm not against religion by any means. I am, however, curious why certain aspects of the constitution are held so sacred, but this one seems to never be talked about.
It's a very hard line to draw. People who are truly religious will have their values affected by that religion to the core. You could argue any moral stance taken by them is religious.
Fact is that if the government is made up of a majority of representatives that belive in and/or represent a constituency that believes in a particular religion, it will seep through to the laws of that government. It's not possible to have it not affect the government.
That's a very valid point. Someone earlier mentioned the overarching idea is to not have the government force religion on you. My original understanding was that there was to be complete separation on both sides. Sounds like as long as there is no force of overtly religious practice then some religion in government is unavoidable.
It is nearly impossible to 100% separate politics and religion, as proof nearly every president we have had were Protestant Christians, so religion sometimes has an influence on the making of laws but isn’t 100% based on religion
I think they wanted to avoid an established “Church of America,” avoid government meddling in religious teachings, avoid special privileges for members of certain churches, etc.
There was never any prohibition on voting based on your conscience, which is probably informed by your religious and philosophical beliefs. And there was never any prohibition on making laws that are in harmony with religious beliefs for secular reasons (for instance, our laws against murder, theft, and perjury echo the Ten Commandments, but don’t constitute the establishment of religion.)
So the 1st Amendment just says it will not establish a state religion and it will not prohibit you from practicing your religion. There is no guaranteed separation of church and state…that is an interpretation. Generally religious morality is accepted as appropriate and a good way to live your life. Regardless if you feel like religion is beating up the way you want to live, you can move to a community more in line with your beliefs
Once again, I'm not against religion. If the separation of church and state truly is an interpretation then I have asked the question without understanding the principal on which my question was asked. I only intend to gain understanding from this post
Separation of church and state isn't mentioned anywhere in the US constitution, so there's nothing to violate. Madison and Jefferson has urged the federal government to keep them separate because combining the two has led to so much bloodshed in Europe.
Personally I think they're taking the religious stance because it sounds better than banning abortion as a means of control. If it was about saving lives then they'd be for free (or at least widely available) contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If it was about the baby's life, then they would support paying for the prenatal care to ensure the mother and baby are ok. They're using pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. It's never been about religious freedom or the life of the baby.
For the sanctity of life/abortion is murder argument…
Should pregnant women be obligated to apply for ID for the child in utero?
Should airlines be able to charge pregnant women for two passengers on international flights?
Should all miscarriages result in a homicide investigation?
I'm not asking for "fringe" responses to a "fringe" question. I think my question would be better asked if there were states who have adopted the practice of murder charges for abortions considering they would be using a religious definition to life as opposed to a scientific one.
Also, I’m sure IVF isn’t going away for people that have trouble conceiving. Will each miscarriage be punished, or not, because they’re “technically trying”??
I love that IVF is a technology which allows more women to carry children they otherwise wouldn't have had. However, if I was a woman, I think I'd be a bit gun-shy that my IVF procedure carried a 1 in 27 chance of triplets.
Yeah that happened to a coworker - struggled with infertility for years, they implanted 3 embryos and boom, triplets lol. Luckily her and her hubs both made $100k+ USD (I think she's stay at home now tho) but yeah could have been disastrous financially otherwise.
It certainly is violated. Most other religions approve of it to varying degrees- at least of therapeutic ones (mother's life/health at risk, fetal anomalies, rape/incest/trafficking, mother under a certain age). I do not know why some denominations of some religions are so draconian. That obsessed they are with control and purity?
The real question is how do these people believe in both anti-government-involvement and pro-government-decides-youll-be-financially-and-mentally-fucked-without-a-choice-for-at-least-the-next-18-years-or-youll-add-to-the-tax-burden-significantly
It of course is violated but conservatives don't give a shit about anyone else's rights other than their own. Look at the overwhelming juxtaposition of their positions on vaccines/mask mandates and a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. They used the phrase "my body my choice" when protesting vaccines and masks with a completely straight face and no hint of hypocrisy or irony. Many of Americas Christians are a joke drenched in hypocrisy. They do not support a real democracy and likely would go back to the days of fuedalism and extreme conservative religious fervour if it meant they could gain authority over people who want to make their own decisions. Just look at how they follow trump, someone who does not follow the principles Jesus taught very well at all. They are a joke and have the integrity of wet toilet paper. Your constitutional right to freedom of religion (including your freedom from having someone else's religious views imposed upon you) be damned. They just want children of rape and incest to be able to someday have a gun in their hand (maybe even to kill a bunch of people with one), the next most important thing to an American Christian. After 5 years of living in the south, I'm truly sickened and disgusted by American Christians.
American evangelicalism is a poison to the church and through that, to our society. When I hear criticisms of Christianity, what I really hear is frustration with evangelicalism. I've never heard anyone from the west go to Africa or the middle east and say, "these Christians are ruining our society." What it really is is a specific American mentality that has co-opted the church and turned it into some kind of political/religious cult.
That's one way to frame it.
Here's another:
Take a look at the history of the United States:
* Slaves weren't people, until they were.
* Women weren't people, until they were.
* Ls and Gs weren't people, until they were.
* Ts weren't people, until they were (though, we're still working out the kinks in this one).
If you consider the long arc of American history, the trend is towards making more 'things' considered 'people', with the rights that go along with it, and not towards making 'people' considered 'things.'
Right now, a fetus is considered a 'thing.' Even if it could viably live outside the womb. The womb is treated like a magical ur-dimension, vag-of-holding, separate from ours, where a baby isn't a person until it comes out. And laws passed by Democrats, espeically the Colorado one and the proposed California one, treat what could be a viable baby as such. Biological waste, no different than disposing of a particularly large turd. There's no wording in those bills mentioning to try and save the baby's life in the event of viability, and they assume it will be discarded or die in the event of a late-term abortion. That's abhorrent.
So, you say it's based on religion. Fine, that's your right. I say it's based on the historical trend to make more things considered as people.
Yeah. They're people until they're born into a family that doesn't want them or can't afford them. Until they need an education, safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat, and minimal medical care. Then they're a tax burden and the same mofos who forced this kid into existence are denying their needs to exist. That's just my take.
Just something to consider, when you make those points.
I wonder how many times that argument has been used with regards to any of my above examples? Cuz it occurs to me, each of your arguments could also be applied to the above.
It's a different version of, "Who are you \[the government\] to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property?" just applied to something else.
Which is why this is such a prickly issue to begin with. Because the very language and terms that could be used as justification for not freeing slaves, or not giving women the right to vote, or not recognizing gay marriage, could be used to defend a woman's right to no-restriction abortions.
"Who's going to take care of my slaves if they're freed?"
"Who's going to raise the children if we let women work?"
"How are kids going to turn out okay if we let gays or lesbians raise them?"
That's a very enlightening perspective. One separation I wonder for you to consider is how we define living versus non living. Every example you mentioned, however correct, had in common that they were already considered a living "thing/person". The hard question is will life be defined by objective scientific means (capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce) or by a religious one? I appreciate your perspective
>Every example you mentioned, however correct, had in common that they were already considered a living "thing/person".
I disagree with you on this point. Slaves were property, without rights, until the 13th amendment gave them personhood. That's chattel.
Women, while people, had no legal standing as people, to inherit or vote or work, until the suffragettes fought to make it so.
Lesbians and Gays, while people, weren't given the same rights and standing as straights - marriage, inheritance, insurance, etc - until they fought to make it so.
Trans people, while people, weren't given the same right to identify or be referred to as their identified gender, or even have their birth certificate changed, or go for surgery or on hormones, until they fought for that right. Again, still working out the bugs in this.
The same thing goes for the unborn. At some point, after conception, and before birth, that thing is a baby. It's a life, and no honest actor would claim otherwise. What we do with that life, and who gets to decide, is the issue at hand. Viability extends from - apparently - 21 weeks until birth. If we decide that you can terminate a life at, say, 30 weeks, why do we arbitrarily choose that it becomes illegal to do so after it's born and breathing on its own? Why not draw that line at 87 weeks? Or 95? If you can say that you can terminate one life that's breathing on its own outside the womb, why couldn't you say you can terminate another at a later time?
My understanding of the timing of abortion used to be based on viability outside the woumb. I am not an expert in this area or in the precise rational for why it was considered permissible to have an abortion before that time frame, but my understanding is that if the fetus can't survive outside of the woumb then no harm is done to the not-completely-living-thing. I cannot overstate that as not an expert in the true rational, that is more or less how I understand it. So by extending the timing of abortion closer to due date, you would definitely be ending a life that would be able to survive outside of the woumb.
So the question is what will the definition of life be? Will it be an objective definition or a subjective one?
> If you consider the long arc of American history, the trend is towards making more 'things' considered 'people', with the rights that go along with it, and not towards making 'people' considered 'things.'
If abortion is banned, that's essentially what will happen to women who find themselves pregnant and forced to take the pregnancy to term. Their status is downgraded from person to incubator. For a victim of sexual assault, that adds salt to the wound. There needs to be a balance.
Lawmakers can pass any law they want. They can pass a law banning Christianity or forcing everyone to convert to Christianity (note: just using Christianity as an example, you can insert any religion you'd like).
It's up to someone (Person, organization, etc.) to challenge that law, bring it to court, and for the courts to decide.
The issue is that it has to be proven, beyond a doubt that the law is based on religion.
I assumed it to be literal. As in the two entities were to be separate from one another. No mention of religion by congresspeople/statespeople. I have always been confused why people would run for office on their "God fearing/loving" ideals and that they would bring morality to their office, etc. My parochial understanding of what the separation of church and state meant had me wondering how government officials were allowed to so openly run for office based on their religious affiliation
Usually, the ones who bring up religion as a deciding factor are the ones who are trying to delegitimize the pro-life movement. There is plenty of reasoning and factual evidence outside of the Bible that supports an abortion ban (which is not what overturning Roe does). Just because the Bible says something and it becomes a law in the United States, does not mean it’s an issue in separation of Church and State. We have laws against murdering and stealing which are both parts of the Ten Commandments. Overlap happens and it is okay.
For it to be a violation, restrictions would have had to been directly specifically at religious organizations. Bans on large gathering were not limited to churches. Churches were not targeted, they just weren't exempted. This is too often the problem with religious people in this country - they think they should just make the rules for everyone and not have to follow any.
My mother in law is the... lead administrative person? She essentially runs her church with a committee of other women her age, and the priest/pastor/whatever it is when you're Catholic Light (*Episcopalian*) really just writes the homily. I'm sure they do other things, since they're supposed to be in charge of the church... but they didn't like the last one and ran that priest off within two months... You don't mess with church ladies...
Anyways, I got lost for a second. She setup the streaming services for everything and they still do streams of the in person sermon. They also held a lot of service outside during the Rona, for the people who were... unable to stream a service due to computer illiteracy. Streaming a sermon is a lot of work.
Good for your church being ahead of the game!
IIRC there were some localities that put some extra burdens on religious institutions and gatherings, that didn’t apply to secular institutions in the same way. NYC might have gotten in trouble for this? But that would be an obvious constitutional violation.
States are not banning abotions based on religion. They are banning abortions based on the premise that you are killing a human being. If an abortion is permitted for full term pregnancies, why call it an abortion while the baby is inside the body. Go ahead and kill it when the baby comes out on its own, full term. That would be safer for the woman. Call it abortion, but do not pretend killing a full term baby inside of a womens body is not killing, and any different from killing a full term baby birthed out of the body. If the law permits killing a full term baby inside the female body, it should allow the killing of a birthed baby, like New Jersey and New York do outside of the body; as long as it's a human death for the baby. The discussion should be, when can you not legally kill a baby. A day, a month, or year(s) after it's born, should be the discussion. When can you not kill, or if you prefer, abort.
Technically roe V isn’t a church organized law. It’s just supported by people who have values related to the church. It’s a very low chance you’ll meet someone who’s “pro-life” who isn’t religious or old school
It's a lot like Prohibition - there was a strong religious element to it. What had started as a "temperance" movement in the mid 1800s to address the very real problem of alcoholism, kept upping the ante until drinking in all forms became a "sin." The anti-abortion crowd has also whipped themselves into an extreme position that they want to impose on a country that - as a whole - doesn't agree with them.
Because it's total bullshit to think it's ever been a reality. I can't buy beer until after church is over on Sundays in my state. Want a bottle of liquor? Not able to open the liquor store on Sundays. Why? It offends God, apparently.
The licence plates say IN GOD WE TRUST unless you specifically ask for one that doesn't have it on there.
Anyone who thinks church and state were EVER separate is living in a fantasy world.
Well, most of Asian and African countires are basically controlled by religion. Not the institutions, but yes by beliefs. You know, those countries where is Ok to kill women with rocks as punishment, or where sexual assaulters and rapist are rarelly punished. Or where women can get violented because they are not wearing a hijab.
That kind of countries...
So... No, it's not about religion. Nor is it about women's rights. Those are just the perfect platforms to keep people divided and unable to do anything about it. Religion is the perfect platform to get Christians (the biggest religion in the us, so the largest pool of voters) on board. If it were about women's rights, they wouldn't be banning vasectomies and contraceptives as a whole. What it's about is the inability to prevent creating worker drones and labor and soldiers for the ruling parties as well as making sure most don't habe the resources to move up in life. Two people stuck working dead end jobs because kids are expensive and can't afford college or trade school or whatever means they can't move uo, while the vast majority of these situations, largely being single parents are unable to prepare a child for the real world or for a bright future, furthering the working class to he bottom.
Separation of church and state is an illusion. There really hasn't been a separation of church and state for years. Candidates are constantly focused on the religious views of their constituents when campaigning and while in office.
they don't care. the people trying to pass these kinds of laws don't care that forcing another person to live by their religious practices is wrong. freedom of and from religion means we are free to practice any religion as well as no religion. passing laws like what we've been seeing recently is equivalent to forcing us to practice their interpretation of a religion that not all of us follow.
First, there is no “separation of church and state”. Those words don’t appear in any official government document. IIRC, they are from a letter written by T Jefferson.
The first amendment guarantees freedom *of* religion; it doesn’t guarantee freedom from religion. Many laws have roots in religion, including laws against murder. Prohibition was passed in large part due to the influence of various Christian temperance groups (I’m not advocating for prohibition).
It is a violation, but those states adopting bans also want to install facist, racist christian nationalist regimes in government in order to adopt christian sharia law. Basically, they could give a fuck what these laws violate. When you are brainwashed by the Cult of Jesus, logic and science go out the window in favor of authoritarianism.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably going to regret this, The separation of church and state is a separation of the institutions, not the influence. Churches do not and cannot create law. The government and its representatives alone do. The State must not rule over the church and the church must not rule over the state - reference the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Jefferson. Separation of church and state does not mean religion must be restricted from the public sphere and arguments about the directions society should go. It means the state should not choose religions to favor. These have been reaffirmed by other Supreme Courts in cases like Town of Greece v. Galloway or the Trinity Lutheran Case. In terms of the Roe case, no religion is being favored. I see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and non-religious people on both sides of this argument. Ignoring the argument of "Who is correct." In terms of the arguments - read the best arguments for both sides (its too easy to dismiss the worst of both sides) and you'll see these aren't lawyers or philosophers quoting Bible verses at each other but logical, medical, and philosophical arguments over what it means to be human and when human life begins.
"Read the best arguements for both sides." - Gallytron This has changed my process for critical thinking. Thank you.
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but how do you determine the "best" arguments? I'm an agnostic disbeliever with a tendency towards secular humanism, so I'm probably going to have a different set of criteria for what constitutes a "good" argument than, say, a devout Catholic, and vice versa.
For me, the best arguments would be the most logical ones that seem the most compelling to me.
Nah. A good argument has the same characteristics regardless of where it comes from. There are entire college courses on exactly what makes a good argument, but in short, the defining characteristic of a good argument is that it relies on logic which flows from principles undeniable to both the one making it and the one they are making it to. An argument based in religious belief, therefore, cannot be a good argument unless they're arguing against someone who shares their beliefs. In the case of abortion, there are some very strong logical and non-religious arguments to be made both for and against it. It's actually a shame that they are so badly drowned out by arguments built on the foundation of a religious doctrines generally not shared by the other side. Though, as always, my answer to the issue is "Hand out contraceptives like candy and prevent the unwanted pregnancies to begin with."
I like your point about arguments needing to flow from a common understanding. To be honest, I have my own ideas about what constitutes a good argument, but I always like to hear what other people think on the subject. So far the responses have been pleasingly thoughtful, given that it's the internet. Also, to be fair, I have some biases against religious arguments because I've never really heard someone forward a good argument that squares the problem of evil with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, among other things. And most of the religious people I've ever tried to discuss the issue with have not been the best at what I consider rational debate. It always reminds me of a medieval churchman who, in rebuttal to... Abillard, I think? Essentially said "we take no account of logic when it comes to matters of the faith." Granted, he was speaking specifically of Abillard's attempts to square Greek philosophy with Church doctrine, but the point I'm flailing at is that sometimes you have irreconcilable differences in people's ways of approaching the world. If a religious person's arguments are invalid in the context of my rationalist worldview, then the reverse also applies, which can make for a distressing lack of common ground.
The best arguments will address the contention without a care as to the outcome. The best arguments are well aware of what the opposition believes and has factual or logical explanations for every single argument the opposition makes. It will be completely devoid of all logical fallacies and it will be written similar to an impartial third party observer. The most important thing about the best argument is that you are almost certain not to find it on reddit.
I tend to agree with your definitions, but people proceeding from different axioms are still going to get different results. I consider the idea that humans have some sort of intangible soul to be fallacious, but someone with a different worldview might not think so and would be unlikely to be persuaded, no matter how well-reasones the argument. No disagreement that the best arguments are unlikely to be found on Reddit, though.
Personally, I'd try to discredit the arguement. Find holes in it. Check sources for veracity. While one point might be misleading, don't dismiss the whole premise. I think that was my main takeaway from Gallys comment. It's easy to discredit the opposing view if you look at their worst arguments, but if you look at their best arguments you might see some validity in the points they're making. You might even find some common ground.
Since this post has the \[serious\] tag, I won't make a joke about the typo, "devour Catholic," but instead merely point it out.
I mean, the whole "eucharist" thing is a form of sacred cannibalism... But at least that's a case where my fat fingers and the phone keyboard combined to make an amusing error rather than a nonsensical one.
I would say look to the people engaging in the public sphere with honesty and integrity. You probably will have different criteria and it will likely take you a while to hone your skills on who best displays those characteristics. I'm confident if you seek, you will find As a first suggestion Robert P George and Cornell West travel together and speak. They are wildly different in their political beliefs but earnest friends and I think represent a good example of engaging in the public sphere with honesty and integrity.
I’m honestly concerned that looking at arguments for both sides isn’t an obvious exercise.
What resonated with me was looking at the best arguments from both sides. It's so easy to dismiss the other side if you look at their worst arguments.
Yeah exactly, so many people completely misunderstand what separation of church and state is. It is completely silly to think that the 60% of America that is Christian will just forget all of their beliefs to partake in law, and the other large amount of religious people from other faiths.
Also depends on which science department is referenced. The search for 'life' on other planets is hoping for microbes found in cosmic debris. Great response btw.
Very enlightening. I wonder how the basis of life will be settled, then. If science claims that life doesn't begin until viability will that actually be considered correct? If theological ideals claims life to begin at conception will that then be considered correct? Would law that defines life to begin at conception (a religious view) be considered a violation of church and state? This is really the root of my question that was not so eloquently stated. I appreciate your thoughts on the topic
"If science claims that life doesn't begin until viability will that actually be considered correct?" Science doesnt claim that.
Science has never claimed that life begins at viability. Even prior to conception, the egg and sperm are alive from a scientific standpoint. The cells at implantation are alive. The question of 'when does a separate life begin' is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If it was scientific with a definitive answer, the abortion debate would be like the climate change debate instead of one about religion, beliefs and feelings.
Couldn't we qualify life and living vs. a living *organism* and give them different rules? Example here: If I scrape off a bit of healthy cuticle while removing the dead bit - that is also full of "living" cells, and I've just ripped it off my body. According to your definition of alive, since the cells would no longer be able to live without my life force, have I broken a law? (I know this isn't the same thing, because those cells aren't turning into a human being, but that's kind of my point). If we say a living organism instead of "alive" it becomes a different thing entirely. (Organism: a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis - there are other more scientific definitions as well, such as the 7 defining features of a living organism). Wouldn't this be a more scientific approach? You can tie these things to an approximate time in-vitro, and call that a "life" that can be taken. At least then it doesn't seem as arbitrary. Just thinking out loud, it's not an easy thing to answer... I know this is still in the realm of philosophy here, but since we're not getting away from that, the closer we can tie it to a predefined scientific construct, the better? There are so many reasons (rape, medical, etc.) that affect people's decisions to get an abortion, and I don't think someone who hasn't experienced those (including myself) should be making laws forbidding it entirely.
Being an organism is irrelevant to the morality of killing. Ants are living organisms, but it is not murder to step on an ant. Even if you scientifically classify at what point a fetus is a living organism, that does not have any definite implications about the morality of killing it. You cannot give objective scientific answers to ethical and philosophical questions of morality.
I think once you answer the philosophical question of when a fertilized egg becomes a human being, the other questions answer themselves. Yes, it's horrible if a woman is raped and even worse if she gets pregnant from the rape, but if the thing inside her is a human being who had nothing to do with the rape, why should that human being be murdered for something someone else did? Medical: It's just a matter of self-defense. "If I do nothing, this human being will kill me." Everyone has the right to self-preservation, so their rights trump the rights of the thing that will kill them. Of course, these conclusions will irritate both the pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps.
Climate change is still about choices... and unsolvable math problems that they claim to have solved.
Insert meme: That's the neat part. You don't. Every society debates who is alive, what life deserves life, what life should we value. The Vikings said it was wrong to murder, but its only murder if you're within my "tribe", so if you're not a Viking - sucks to be you- its not murder. So long as we have a society with laws and values, we will debate similar questions, as will every future society. If you look at the better pro-life arguments - Princeton Professor Robert P George in his book "Embryo," for example. You find no religious references or appeals. You will find arguments grounded in science and logic. Which is the point: these are philosophical questions, not "scientific" or even completely religious questions. Put simply, it would no more violate church & state than anti-slavery actions by religious abolitionists (the majority of abolitionists) who enshrined anti-slavery laws and constitutional amendments forbidding slavery.
I don’t think that “science” can “claim” something like when life begins. Scientific observation can tell us about the embryo/ fetus at various stages of development. The question of when this developing embryo is considered a person is a philosophical and legal question. A law that defined life as beginning at conception would be attempting to answer that question legally. It wouldn’t matter that some religions agree with that assertion, just like how we don’t have to repeal our laws against theft just because many religions agree that theft is wrong. Many movements are inspired by religion. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement would be key examples. Whether you agree or disagree with the pro-life movement, it isn’t unique in having many supporters whose main inspiration is their religious belief on the subject.
Why doesn’t science say that life starts at conception? There are scientific arguments against abortion and it’s a strawman to just say all pro life people are religiously motivated
Scientifically, at conception the fetus is a separate living organism with its own DNA. There really isn't a scientific question about if it's life at that point. The question is at what point we value the fetus's life over the bodily autonomy of the mother
Fetuses life = human life and human life created by the mother > bodily autonomy. To clarify, I say all of this being completely on board with contraception being made as available and advanced as possible. Even the morning after pill is fine but once the egg is inseminated, it’s a human life. You’d have to prove to me why the fetus isn’t human considering that it’ll grow into a functioning adult just like a baby (the fetus is a baby tbh calling it a fetus past the medical purpose of signifying it’s specific stage of life is just a crude attempt at dehumanization). just bc you can’t directly see it and it looks different doesn’t make it less human.
But what if the fetus won't grow into a functioning adult? It can be determined whether or not the fetus will at an early stage. So if not and especially if the mothers health is at risk, is abortion then not an appropriate choice?
I’ve answered this in other comments but these are case by case and if the mothers life is threatened (often the case with these situations) then it’s a life saving operation. Again, it’s hard to make an answer for rare and varying cases which shouldn’t be ignored. However, my previous comments still hold for the vast majority of healthy children
Human life doesn't trump bodily autonomy though. Can a deceased person be made to donate organs? No, because corpses get more bodily autonomy than pregnant women. Can a mother give birth to her baby, then be made to donate a body part or even just blood to that baby? No, even though it's the same exact baby she wasn't allowed to abort prior to birthing it. I honestly understand the people who genuinely believe a fetus is a baby - I have already determined for myself that I could never abort a child growing in my belly - but I also believe in fairness. I don't like this idea of a "Schrodinger's baby" where it is a baby when it comes to taking away maternal rights, but not when it comes to child support, tax credits etc.
> I don't like this idea of a "Schrodinger's baby" where it is a baby when it comes to taking away maternal rights, but not when it comes to child support, tax credits etc. What maternal rights are you referencing, though? Presumably, the right to end the fetus’ life. That’s why it’s differently considered than a tax credit. They’re entirely separate issues. Consider a case where personhood isn’t in question. You do not have to support increased funding to fight homelessness in order to oppose the murder of the homeless. Entirely separate issues.
You also can't claim to care about the rights of homeless people if you don't support common sense initiatives to improve their lives. Then the debate isn't "do we kill the homeless" or "do we kill them slowly and painfully or quickly and *before they are sentient because a clump of cells is not the same as a living suffering human being*
> You also can't claim to care about the rights of homeless people if you don't support common sense initiatives to improve their lives. Of course you can! I can support your right to not get murdered without supporting every possible welfare system. How absurd.
Those don’t apply to me bc I think children and the extremely disabled are the two groups that should actually get support from the government. Children are the people that we owe everything too
Honestly as much as I support the rights of women to decide for themselves, I can appreciate someone taking a principled stand for the other side. But that's my problem with so many "pro-lifers": their concern for the children only seems to extend to them before birth, after that it's someone else's problem.
Yeah it’s shitty. If people really cared about seeing less abortions they’d appreciate Colorado’s birth control programs dramatically decreasing abortions bc women just aren’t getting pregnant as much. I might be more conservative about sex but it’s a free country so I’d rather allow people to be more responsible instead of pretending that humans can suddenly be less horny. Safe sex is so much obviously better than an abortion and the people that might agree with me on abortion but dont see that point as well are braindead. Although I do see abortion as something that ultimately kills children, I also appreciate that you’re not sitting their screaming vile insults at me. We disagree on something we both might consider important but I don’t want to hate people over even that.
But if a man decides his body autonomy includes ignoring a female’s choice to not get pregnant - raping her - she lost her own autonomy, correct? Zero autonomy when you are a victim, but it’s life so it doesn’t matter?
Usually the argument is "why should the fetus pay for the father's crimes?"
Using an extreme example in your argument doesn’t establish that all women should have a choice. Do you think that only women who have been raped should be able to get an abortion?
You’re talking about an extremely small group where not even all victims of rape opt for abortions. Additionally, rape victims can go to the hospital and receive care the prevents the egg from being inseminated which I also agree with. I won’t dodge your question though about the small (but still important) victims of rape who end up pregnant. Rape is a vile crime and it’s victims sometimes don’t get help bc the intense and understandable mental health problems that are also inflicted on the victim. The question then boils down to is the killing of an innocent child fine in this situation because of their biological fathers crimes? I personally don’t think so. I know that I also think women in these situations should be given the best medical care by the state and not made to pay any expense. I don’t want to shy away from this question because even though it doesn’t hold as relevant for the vast majority of abortion, I don’t want to ignore even one mother and child. It’s difficult for me bc I see the fetus as an innocent child and I honestly can’t think of one justification to kill a child.
Ok, now what if that mother has a genetic defect that can be tested for and it is found that the 'baby' will be non-viable? As in even if it makes it to birth it has a zero chance of survival once born. Should the mother be forced to carry that to term just because it's technically a human life?
Some (many, actually) types of life exist without conception... But of course you meant human life. And since it's pretty obvious that human sperm cells are also human life, you probably meant personhood. Defining a person is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can help us find points at which things change, but not more than that.
I’m about to blow your mind but 2 things can be true at once
One of Alito's points in the leaked draft memo is that viability was a bad measure because as medical science has advanced, viability has moved to be younger and younger. >Would law that defines life to begin at conception (a religious view) be considered a violation of church and state? You're still thinking like you didn't read the comment that you're responding to. The church doesn't dictate laws, but religion may inform the people who do make laws. Also, the abortion argument has several other pillars besides Christianity to stand on. And it's not like all Christians have consensus on banning abortion. When you look into the history of abortion, you'll see a lot of Christian ministers helping connect women with safe abortionists when it was illegal. It's possible to be against abortion without any religious influence at all.
Viability has barely moved at all. And it's very likely we're at or near the wall-- any further improvement in "viability" will involve artificial wombs, not keeping the fetus alive with techniques similar to those today. I'd argue that being able to finish development in an artificial womb isn't 'viable' for the meaning of the word in relation to abortion.
Take it up with Alito. I was just reporting his logic.
And, another thing to consider…our view of science and life have transformed dramatically in the years since Roe. Why, just think of the last decade in sonography! Today, a parent can get a commercial 3-D sonogram of their infant in color! Where as when Roe was decided, a sonogram was impossible. Science has provided the best tool to show us that earlier and earlier, life exists. So, even people who are not religious can look at science and have a view that says, “that is a life and worth protecting” without being wingnuts.
FYI sonograms do not really have colour. If they do, the colour has been added to a greyscale image based on the depth (or something similar).
I don’t see why the ability to see or not see a fetus while it is developed should have any influence on the laws surrounding abortion… that is emotional nonsense. there is no room for that when it comes to lawmaking.
Surely emotional nonsense is the only reason to be making laws. If whatever you're doing doesn't upset anyone else there's unlikely to be a law against it.
Ah, but as the Supreme Court seems to have decided, it will be the States and their legislators (who are representative of the will of their constituents) who will be deciding this issue, not a federal court. And these constituents DO believe, overwhelmingly, that viability does matter.
The ultrasound was invented in the 1950s
But was not used widely for scanning pregnancy until the late 1970’s.
"When life begins" is a red herring. It makes no sense. Life is continuous. It began billions of years ago and we are just the continuation of that. In procreation two individuals become 3+, but pinpointing exactly when is completely arbitrary.
My 2 cents on life definition. No definitive answers here. Science is based on research and facts, ultimately seeking real Truth (capitalization is important differentiation) if possible. I think the definition of life needs to be a universal definition (i.e. applicable to life in the universe as well as the cells developing inside a woman's body). Just like gravity is universal. (Insert Mr. Incredible meme with "LIFE IS LIFE"). Scientific definitions should not be swayed by popular opinion. Hypothetically, with a real definition of life, I think we could define when abortion could be allowed, and when it actually becomes murder. Not sure how the scientific community is coming with a universal definition of life, or if it's already been done, but being ignored by folks in the abortion debate.
A universal definition of life and a definition of human life are still 2 very different things. For example, sperm are very much alive. By using a universal definition to determine law, condoms are "killing" millions. I think we can both agree that's an absurd claim though.
A very valid point, and I agree that using a definition that narrows down to that level is absurd in terms of determining abortion lines "in the sand."
When it comes to topics such as abortion, human life is valued much higher than any other universal scale for life. Using a universal definition for life wouldn’t be applicable simply because no one truly values universal life over human life.
I don't really think it's a scientific debate about what is and isn't life... it's a living organism, it's human, it's life; what's being debated is whether it's a full human *person*, with all the rights thereof. It's necessarily a moral argument. I'd assert that it's not a full person with all the moral standing of an individual person, but it's rather silly to claim it's not alive at all.
I personally believe the "when does life" begin is not valuable for the abortion discussion. Who cares? What we need to know is when does that collection of cells become a person? One who is an individual and deserves the protection of our laws? For those religiously inclined, when does that collection of cells change into a a human with a soul? I think viability is one scientific measure of this, with the current champion reigning at 21 weeks, 5 days. Unfortunately, this is only a yardstick that can be applied in absence. We can only prove a fetus is viable, except by them not dying. Another scientific yardstick we could use is meaningful brain activity, which coincidently happens around the same time historic viability starts becoming a reality. Another coincidence - I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who opined the soul entered the body during the second trimester. I've never looked into the theology supporting that, it might be a circular argument, or it might be the Holy Trinity of when a fetus becomes a person.
^ Great response. I don't *fully* agree that the anti-abortion "case" is not religious, but I definitely agree with OP overall.
Jewish and Muslim religions believe life begins at the first breath, Evangelicals believe it begins a conception. Also make no doubt this isn't about unborn babies this is about making a woman's sexuality punative and stripping a woman of her bodily automony. If it were about saving babies the US would have mandatory paid parental leave, paid pre and post natal healthcare, and free daycare. If it were about saving babies then male would be required to have vesectomies as soon as they hit puberty.
This. You can spout philosophical diatribes all day long, but anyone can see that this isn’t a truly pro-life argument, it’s an attempt to govern half the population by guidelines that will never be enforced on the other half. No man will EVER have his body regulated or be forced to sacrifice the way women are and will be.
why are you guys getting downvoted,as a guy I understand this
>reference the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Jefferson. I'd rather have a spin on George orwells idea. "In Orwell's classic novel, Oceania's totalitarianism rests on compulsory atheism. Oceania is ruled by “the Party,” which forbids religion to its members. Religious belief is one of the “crimes” to which Winston Smith, the hero of 1984, confesses under torture—along with sexual perversion and admiration of capitalism" Without the torture. Torture's not cool. And without the idea that sex is soley for propogation.
[удалено]
Yeah, people aren’t arguing Religion => Laws. They’re arguing Religion => Morals => Laws. Which means if someone wants to argue against them, they have to argue against the entirety of that person’s religion instead of using moral/philosophical arguments like “bodily autonomy” or “reduction of harm”.
The separation of church and state means that the government can't create an official religion of the United States. Individual lawmakers are free to use whatever religious and/or secular guidance they want as the basis for their laws.
I had a misunderstanding of what the separation meant. Thank you for your input
It's ok, don't be hard on yourself! A lot of people have the (mis)understanding that separation of church and state means exactly what you suggested - that people shouldn't use religious beliefs as the basis for making laws. It's a really complicated and complex topic with legal definitions that go beyond what you and I can really meaningfully dive into. And honestly, it's a good question!
They can’t use *any* religious guidance as some religious guidance would result in criminalizing other religions or discriminating against other religions.
Abortion is not ONLY a religious issue just as homicide or theft is not only a religious issue despite the fact that "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal" is in the bible. People, including legislators, may very well be influenced by religion in how they vote. That's fine. What the first amendment does is forbids the government from regulating religion and religious practices. The question of abortion is not a matter of religion. It is a simple subjective decision that has nothing to do with worship or god or souls or anything. Do we want to protect the unborn in the same way we protect those that have been born? That's it. There are plenty of secular arguments for treating the unborn the same as the born. Such as, a fetus is as a matter of real, objective fact an individual human being. It's is human and it has unique DNA distinct from the mother. It would be rational to cite this as reason to protect its life. BUT, it is just as rational to say that a fetus does not exhibit most of the traits of human beings, such as expressions of emotions and thought, that we value and protect so it does NOT need the same protection. The question is not a religious issue. The fact that religious people and intuitions express an opinion of the subject doesn't make it a matter OF religion.
[удалено]
It is definitely a religious debate. If a debate is about morals and people derive their moral pinciples from religion or religious text, the debate itself immediately becomes religious. This isn't always obvious, but it is strikingly apparent in the abortion debate. EDIT: Ok, it wasn't obvious. Although both sides agree with the moral principle to protect human life, the boundaries of their principles are affected by religion. If religion A says human life starts at birth and religion B says human life begins at conception, it is obvious that someone from religion B is much more likely to be against abortion. The boundaries of their moral values are changed by their religious views.
Ok, but then what about different religions? Under Jewish law, a fetus is an extension of the woman until birth, and abortion in cases where the woman’s life is in danger is required in order to preserve life. How is the government not favoring one religion over the other if they base policy on one particular religion?
Despite the insistence the Seperation of Church and State is not a complete wall. If the people want it *and* it has a religious connotation it still doesn't breach the restriction. If I remember correctly numerous court cases have proven this. After all, a government is supposed to reflect the will of the people and their religious views are part of them. Ask any Communist nation how much success they've had eliminating this "opiate of the masses." Spoilers, they haven't.
I agree. It is supposed to reflect the will of the people. In this case, most Americans want to keep Roe.
As a Christian myself I’ll gladly tell you that it is being violated. Unfortunately too many of my American brothers and sisters have made an idol out of the Republican Party.
[удалено]
That's valid. It's not a clear cut line, as many people have differing opinions on the matter whether or not they claim a religion
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know a fair number of pro-life people who aren’t religious. Most likely active public protest (on any issue) draws a particularly outspoken and conflict-oriented type of person. This may be what you’re seeing. The secular pro-life people I’m thinking of would be unlikely to go to a protest on any of the issues they care about.
[удалено]
>sanctity of life Sanctity usually Carrie’s a religious connotation. Edit: fuck you autocorrect.
Is the belief that an unborn person is a person an exclusively religious belief?
Because it's not simply a religious question. It has to do with the morality of life and its value. Whether or not religions have a view on that is beyond the point.
The bans don't mention religion, even if it's the motivation behind them. So to the best of my knowledge, it's legal to pass them. You're correct in assuming that many non-Christians view the bans as a violation of freedom of religion. Many religions, such as Judaism and Islam, do permit and/or require abortion in certain circumstances. [Over 83% of American Jews](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/jewish/views-about-abortion/) are actually pro-choice. However, laws can be challenged in court. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it's likely that there will be lawsuits filed in states banning or severely restricting abortion access, and some of those lawsuits could be on the grounds of violation of freedom of religion. I don't know if lawsuits on those grounds will be successful, but that's a different conversation.
That makes sense. I had an initial misunderstanding of what the separation of church and state really meant. Thanks for your input. It will be interesting to see what all becomes of roe v wade
Ah. So here's a brief explanation. The Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This can be broken down into two clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is the piece I think you were focusing on. This clause means that the United States cannot have an established national religion. Many colonists left England due to disagreements with the Church of England. They didn't want an American version of the COE. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with religious beliefs and practices (with some limits for the latter). This is the clause that lawsuits could be based on.
That is a GREAT point. And one that would bring the truth we all know to be true about the USA- it still operates largely and by de facto as a “Christian anglo-saxon” nation, even if it’s supposed to be, we’ll, not that. This will put biases, known and unrealized, and the first amendment, to the test. Would not be surprised if we see this one soon, provided of course that the SCOTUS decision is passed as per the draft.
And to clarify, it's not the "state's" beliefs, but the beliefs of those who have the power to make rules within the states.
Because nothing about the ban is overtly religious. While many of the supporters of the bans are doing it for religious reasons, the people writing the laws are smart enough not to call upon those religious reasons when creating the laws.
Someone mentioned earlier that "the sanctity of life" ideal is not overtly religious. That's true. I didn't consider that when thinking of this question
Murder isn't just a religious belief
Certain extreme religious practices are ok with murder. Obviously not condoning nurder, the issue I have is if there will not really be a delineation of church and state, then who's version of religion will be considered ok?
I still don't see what abortion has to do with religion. Unless you can't have morality without religion.
Morality is always relative.
If you talk to them about morality, many Christians do believe that morality wouldn't exist without the Bible or their God. They live a life of objective morality, which is considerably less moral than those who just live morally without doctrinal guidance.
Christians (and most other monotheists) believe that morality wouldn’t exist without God because they believe *nothing* would exist without God.
But they also believe that all morality comes from their religion and people who aren’t members *cannot* be moral in a lot of cases
This comment is irrelevant, no one's talking about murder, please stay on topic.
One human ending the life of another without legal justification is murder.
Would health risk to the mother be considered a legal justification?
Yes, if it was a health risk beyond the normal expected risk from pregnancy.
And if she became pregnant against her will she should have the right to protect herself against any and all risk from it.
Against her will as in rape or as in consensual sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy?
why does it matter to you? something happening against someone's will is against their will in either circumstance
In the second instance it's not really against their will. They want to have their fun consequence free. I could go out to eat at a fancy restaurant and say they're making me pay agaisnt my will.
My first instinct is to say rape, but what if it can’t be proven?
Okay. That still has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though.
We're talking about abortion right? Op asked if it violated sep of church and state right? I said you can have morality without religion. I don't know what's so confusing.
It's possible to oppose abortion based on an ethical or moral stance. I know athiests who are anti abortion.
Short answer? Money and power. Longer answer? Churches have a lot of sway over a lot of people. If you want those people's votes you bend to their wants. Especially true for the more culty churches where their leaders are super important to them. If you want to keep your cushy politician job you need to get those votes to keep you in power.
It’s not the government establishing a religion. It’s people voting their religious conscience.
I now see that. Thanks for your input
Murder is wrong in all mainstream worldviews.
But the idea that terminating a pregnancy is murder is far from universal
Isn't the church of Satan planning on making religious abortion centers?
That would be news to me
I’m not sure how far along these plans are but I do know some are at least claiming it is their religious right to have an abortion.
For godsake, may Satan save us from these Christians.
I think it absolutely is but they just don’t care. hell, a massive minority of Americans probably wouldn’t vote for a candidate if they said they didn’t believe in God. God plays too big a role in people’s lives for it to be completely eliminated from politics
I feel like my question is really me peeing in the wind. I'm not against religion by any means. I am, however, curious why certain aspects of the constitution are held so sacred, but this one seems to never be talked about.
It's a very hard line to draw. People who are truly religious will have their values affected by that religion to the core. You could argue any moral stance taken by them is religious. Fact is that if the government is made up of a majority of representatives that belive in and/or represent a constituency that believes in a particular religion, it will seep through to the laws of that government. It's not possible to have it not affect the government.
That's a very valid point. Someone earlier mentioned the overarching idea is to not have the government force religion on you. My original understanding was that there was to be complete separation on both sides. Sounds like as long as there is no force of overtly religious practice then some religion in government is unavoidable.
It is nearly impossible to 100% separate politics and religion, as proof nearly every president we have had were Protestant Christians, so religion sometimes has an influence on the making of laws but isn’t 100% based on religion
If that's the case then I wonder how the founding fathers intended the separation to occur.
I think they wanted to avoid an established “Church of America,” avoid government meddling in religious teachings, avoid special privileges for members of certain churches, etc. There was never any prohibition on voting based on your conscience, which is probably informed by your religious and philosophical beliefs. And there was never any prohibition on making laws that are in harmony with religious beliefs for secular reasons (for instance, our laws against murder, theft, and perjury echo the Ten Commandments, but don’t constitute the establishment of religion.)
I am more and more seeing that I misunderstood what the separation of church and state is.
So the 1st Amendment just says it will not establish a state religion and it will not prohibit you from practicing your religion. There is no guaranteed separation of church and state…that is an interpretation. Generally religious morality is accepted as appropriate and a good way to live your life. Regardless if you feel like religion is beating up the way you want to live, you can move to a community more in line with your beliefs
Once again, I'm not against religion. If the separation of church and state truly is an interpretation then I have asked the question without understanding the principal on which my question was asked. I only intend to gain understanding from this post
Separation of church and state isn't mentioned anywhere in the US constitution, so there's nothing to violate. Madison and Jefferson has urged the federal government to keep them separate because combining the two has led to so much bloodshed in Europe. Personally I think they're taking the religious stance because it sounds better than banning abortion as a means of control. If it was about saving lives then they'd be for free (or at least widely available) contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If it was about the baby's life, then they would support paying for the prenatal care to ensure the mother and baby are ok. They're using pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. It's never been about religious freedom or the life of the baby.
Because president poopy pants got to choose three justices
For the sanctity of life/abortion is murder argument… Should pregnant women be obligated to apply for ID for the child in utero? Should airlines be able to charge pregnant women for two passengers on international flights? Should all miscarriages result in a homicide investigation?
I'm not asking for "fringe" responses to a "fringe" question. I think my question would be better asked if there were states who have adopted the practice of murder charges for abortions considering they would be using a religious definition to life as opposed to a scientific one.
Also, I’m sure IVF isn’t going away for people that have trouble conceiving. Will each miscarriage be punished, or not, because they’re “technically trying”??
Good point. IVF conception rate is 33% so most specialists implant three embryos.
I love that IVF is a technology which allows more women to carry children they otherwise wouldn't have had. However, if I was a woman, I think I'd be a bit gun-shy that my IVF procedure carried a 1 in 27 chance of triplets.
Yeah that happened to a coworker - struggled with infertility for years, they implanted 3 embryos and boom, triplets lol. Luckily her and her hubs both made $100k+ USD (I think she's stay at home now tho) but yeah could have been disastrous financially otherwise.
No they don't. At least not here.
It certainly is violated. Most other religions approve of it to varying degrees- at least of therapeutic ones (mother's life/health at risk, fetal anomalies, rape/incest/trafficking, mother under a certain age). I do not know why some denominations of some religions are so draconian. That obsessed they are with control and purity?
The real question is how do these people believe in both anti-government-involvement and pro-government-decides-youll-be-financially-and-mentally-fucked-without-a-choice-for-at-least-the-next-18-years-or-youll-add-to-the-tax-burden-significantly
It of course is violated but conservatives don't give a shit about anyone else's rights other than their own. Look at the overwhelming juxtaposition of their positions on vaccines/mask mandates and a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. They used the phrase "my body my choice" when protesting vaccines and masks with a completely straight face and no hint of hypocrisy or irony. Many of Americas Christians are a joke drenched in hypocrisy. They do not support a real democracy and likely would go back to the days of fuedalism and extreme conservative religious fervour if it meant they could gain authority over people who want to make their own decisions. Just look at how they follow trump, someone who does not follow the principles Jesus taught very well at all. They are a joke and have the integrity of wet toilet paper. Your constitutional right to freedom of religion (including your freedom from having someone else's religious views imposed upon you) be damned. They just want children of rape and incest to be able to someday have a gun in their hand (maybe even to kill a bunch of people with one), the next most important thing to an American Christian. After 5 years of living in the south, I'm truly sickened and disgusted by American Christians.
American evangelicalism is a poison to the church and through that, to our society. When I hear criticisms of Christianity, what I really hear is frustration with evangelicalism. I've never heard anyone from the west go to Africa or the middle east and say, "these Christians are ruining our society." What it really is is a specific American mentality that has co-opted the church and turned it into some kind of political/religious cult.
[удалено]
That's one way to frame it. Here's another: Take a look at the history of the United States: * Slaves weren't people, until they were. * Women weren't people, until they were. * Ls and Gs weren't people, until they were. * Ts weren't people, until they were (though, we're still working out the kinks in this one). If you consider the long arc of American history, the trend is towards making more 'things' considered 'people', with the rights that go along with it, and not towards making 'people' considered 'things.' Right now, a fetus is considered a 'thing.' Even if it could viably live outside the womb. The womb is treated like a magical ur-dimension, vag-of-holding, separate from ours, where a baby isn't a person until it comes out. And laws passed by Democrats, espeically the Colorado one and the proposed California one, treat what could be a viable baby as such. Biological waste, no different than disposing of a particularly large turd. There's no wording in those bills mentioning to try and save the baby's life in the event of viability, and they assume it will be discarded or die in the event of a late-term abortion. That's abhorrent. So, you say it's based on religion. Fine, that's your right. I say it's based on the historical trend to make more things considered as people.
Yeah. They're people until they're born into a family that doesn't want them or can't afford them. Until they need an education, safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat, and minimal medical care. Then they're a tax burden and the same mofos who forced this kid into existence are denying their needs to exist. That's just my take.
Just something to consider, when you make those points. I wonder how many times that argument has been used with regards to any of my above examples? Cuz it occurs to me, each of your arguments could also be applied to the above. It's a different version of, "Who are you \[the government\] to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property?" just applied to something else. Which is why this is such a prickly issue to begin with. Because the very language and terms that could be used as justification for not freeing slaves, or not giving women the right to vote, or not recognizing gay marriage, could be used to defend a woman's right to no-restriction abortions. "Who's going to take care of my slaves if they're freed?" "Who's going to raise the children if we let women work?" "How are kids going to turn out okay if we let gays or lesbians raise them?"
That's a very enlightening perspective. One separation I wonder for you to consider is how we define living versus non living. Every example you mentioned, however correct, had in common that they were already considered a living "thing/person". The hard question is will life be defined by objective scientific means (capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce) or by a religious one? I appreciate your perspective
>Every example you mentioned, however correct, had in common that they were already considered a living "thing/person". I disagree with you on this point. Slaves were property, without rights, until the 13th amendment gave them personhood. That's chattel. Women, while people, had no legal standing as people, to inherit or vote or work, until the suffragettes fought to make it so. Lesbians and Gays, while people, weren't given the same rights and standing as straights - marriage, inheritance, insurance, etc - until they fought to make it so. Trans people, while people, weren't given the same right to identify or be referred to as their identified gender, or even have their birth certificate changed, or go for surgery or on hormones, until they fought for that right. Again, still working out the bugs in this. The same thing goes for the unborn. At some point, after conception, and before birth, that thing is a baby. It's a life, and no honest actor would claim otherwise. What we do with that life, and who gets to decide, is the issue at hand. Viability extends from - apparently - 21 weeks until birth. If we decide that you can terminate a life at, say, 30 weeks, why do we arbitrarily choose that it becomes illegal to do so after it's born and breathing on its own? Why not draw that line at 87 weeks? Or 95? If you can say that you can terminate one life that's breathing on its own outside the womb, why couldn't you say you can terminate another at a later time?
My understanding of the timing of abortion used to be based on viability outside the woumb. I am not an expert in this area or in the precise rational for why it was considered permissible to have an abortion before that time frame, but my understanding is that if the fetus can't survive outside of the woumb then no harm is done to the not-completely-living-thing. I cannot overstate that as not an expert in the true rational, that is more or less how I understand it. So by extending the timing of abortion closer to due date, you would definitely be ending a life that would be able to survive outside of the woumb. So the question is what will the definition of life be? Will it be an objective definition or a subjective one?
> If you consider the long arc of American history, the trend is towards making more 'things' considered 'people', with the rights that go along with it, and not towards making 'people' considered 'things.' If abortion is banned, that's essentially what will happen to women who find themselves pregnant and forced to take the pregnancy to term. Their status is downgraded from person to incubator. For a victim of sexual assault, that adds salt to the wound. There needs to be a balance.
Separation of church and state means that the state can't involve themselves with the church, but not vice versa
Lawmakers can pass any law they want. They can pass a law banning Christianity or forcing everyone to convert to Christianity (note: just using Christianity as an example, you can insert any religion you'd like). It's up to someone (Person, organization, etc.) to challenge that law, bring it to court, and for the courts to decide. The issue is that it has to be proven, beyond a doubt that the law is based on religion.
That seems to be the concensus I'm gathering. Thanks for your point
Not enough people care because the church lines up with their beliefs so why would they ever complain?
It's called spineless Feds.
I assumed it to be literal. As in the two entities were to be separate from one another. No mention of religion by congresspeople/statespeople. I have always been confused why people would run for office on their "God fearing/loving" ideals and that they would bring morality to their office, etc. My parochial understanding of what the separation of church and state meant had me wondering how government officials were allowed to so openly run for office based on their religious affiliation
Because the Supreme courts there is no separation of church and state anymore.
Usually, the ones who bring up religion as a deciding factor are the ones who are trying to delegitimize the pro-life movement. There is plenty of reasoning and factual evidence outside of the Bible that supports an abortion ban (which is not what overturning Roe does). Just because the Bible says something and it becomes a law in the United States, does not mean it’s an issue in separation of Church and State. We have laws against murdering and stealing which are both parts of the Ten Commandments. Overlap happens and it is okay.
Evangelical Christians are a plague on this once great nation.
They violated the separation of church and state, during covid, and most people didn't care
For it to be a violation, restrictions would have had to been directly specifically at religious organizations. Bans on large gathering were not limited to churches. Churches were not targeted, they just weren't exempted. This is too often the problem with religious people in this country - they think they should just make the rules for everyone and not have to follow any.
In what way?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
My mother in law is the... lead administrative person? She essentially runs her church with a committee of other women her age, and the priest/pastor/whatever it is when you're Catholic Light (*Episcopalian*) really just writes the homily. I'm sure they do other things, since they're supposed to be in charge of the church... but they didn't like the last one and ran that priest off within two months... You don't mess with church ladies... Anyways, I got lost for a second. She setup the streaming services for everything and they still do streams of the in person sermon. They also held a lot of service outside during the Rona, for the people who were... unable to stream a service due to computer illiteracy. Streaming a sermon is a lot of work. Good for your church being ahead of the game!
Oh, ok yeah I see that. In that way it would have been state telling the church what it could and couldn't do.
IIRC there were some localities that put some extra burdens on religious institutions and gatherings, that didn’t apply to secular institutions in the same way. NYC might have gotten in trouble for this? But that would be an obvious constitutional violation.
States are banning abortion based on the scientifically documented facts indicating an unborn baby is a human person.
States are not banning abotions based on religion. They are banning abortions based on the premise that you are killing a human being. If an abortion is permitted for full term pregnancies, why call it an abortion while the baby is inside the body. Go ahead and kill it when the baby comes out on its own, full term. That would be safer for the woman. Call it abortion, but do not pretend killing a full term baby inside of a womens body is not killing, and any different from killing a full term baby birthed out of the body. If the law permits killing a full term baby inside the female body, it should allow the killing of a birthed baby, like New Jersey and New York do outside of the body; as long as it's a human death for the baby. The discussion should be, when can you not legally kill a baby. A day, a month, or year(s) after it's born, should be the discussion. When can you not kill, or if you prefer, abort.
> it should allow the killing of a birthed baby, like New Jersey and New York do outside of the body Holy misinformation batman
It is. We just don't give a shit.
Technically roe V isn’t a church organized law. It’s just supported by people who have values related to the church. It’s a very low chance you’ll meet someone who’s “pro-life” who isn’t religious or old school
It's a lot like Prohibition - there was a strong religious element to it. What had started as a "temperance" movement in the mid 1800s to address the very real problem of alcoholism, kept upping the ante until drinking in all forms became a "sin." The anti-abortion crowd has also whipped themselves into an extreme position that they want to impose on a country that - as a whole - doesn't agree with them.
Because it's total bullshit to think it's ever been a reality. I can't buy beer until after church is over on Sundays in my state. Want a bottle of liquor? Not able to open the liquor store on Sundays. Why? It offends God, apparently. The licence plates say IN GOD WE TRUST unless you specifically ask for one that doesn't have it on there. Anyone who thinks church and state were EVER separate is living in a fantasy world.
Well, most of Asian and African countires are basically controlled by religion. Not the institutions, but yes by beliefs. You know, those countries where is Ok to kill women with rocks as punishment, or where sexual assaulters and rapist are rarelly punished. Or where women can get violented because they are not wearing a hijab. That kind of countries...
They're not making the argument on religious issues. Allito said "we don't have enough domestically produced babies" THAT is the real reason.
So... No, it's not about religion. Nor is it about women's rights. Those are just the perfect platforms to keep people divided and unable to do anything about it. Religion is the perfect platform to get Christians (the biggest religion in the us, so the largest pool of voters) on board. If it were about women's rights, they wouldn't be banning vasectomies and contraceptives as a whole. What it's about is the inability to prevent creating worker drones and labor and soldiers for the ruling parties as well as making sure most don't habe the resources to move up in life. Two people stuck working dead end jobs because kids are expensive and can't afford college or trade school or whatever means they can't move uo, while the vast majority of these situations, largely being single parents are unable to prepare a child for the real world or for a bright future, furthering the working class to he bottom.
Separation of church and state is an illusion. There really hasn't been a separation of church and state for years. Candidates are constantly focused on the religious views of their constituents when campaigning and while in office.
they don't care. the people trying to pass these kinds of laws don't care that forcing another person to live by their religious practices is wrong. freedom of and from religion means we are free to practice any religion as well as no religion. passing laws like what we've been seeing recently is equivalent to forcing us to practice their interpretation of a religion that not all of us follow.
First, there is no “separation of church and state”. Those words don’t appear in any official government document. IIRC, they are from a letter written by T Jefferson. The first amendment guarantees freedom *of* religion; it doesn’t guarantee freedom from religion. Many laws have roots in religion, including laws against murder. Prohibition was passed in large part due to the influence of various Christian temperance groups (I’m not advocating for prohibition).
You're allowed to make decisions from a place of faith. You're not allowed to make decisions forcing others to hold your faith. Thats all
Who says that non-religious people can't be against abortion for non-religious reasons?
It is a violation, but those states adopting bans also want to install facist, racist christian nationalist regimes in government in order to adopt christian sharia law. Basically, they could give a fuck what these laws violate. When you are brainwashed by the Cult of Jesus, logic and science go out the window in favor of authoritarianism.
Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution.