Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

Whereas I'm finding it typical of any moral question addressed by Christians. There is no common agreed Christian line, just a lot of Bible quotes, condemnation and in-fighting.

Abortion is not a religious or a Biblical issue. It's a secular, public policy issue. When all Christians agree on what their faith position is, then you can bring it to the table and say " Christians believe this". At the moment all you can say is "Those Christians who agree with me, believe this. The Christians who don't agree with me, don't count."

There were non-Christians and Christians on both sides of all these issues. You can claim a victory for righteous Christianity, in fact I expect you to do so, but the claim is false.
Never. For two reasons. Firstly because genocide is an attempt to eradicate a particular ethnic and religious group, whereas every case of abortion, no matter how many of them, is an individual case with unique circumstances. And secondly, because no people are killed in an abortion. The whole essence of genocide is people being killed because of who they are. That's precisely what abortion is not.
No people, no innocence and not wholesale. Nor am I silent. You could not misrepresent me or the situation more if you tried.

As I have said, evil is a hugely over used word. It certainly doesn't apply to abortion. Nor, as I say again, am I silent.

Believe me, it's not something I will experience. I hope you cut and pasted your Bible quotes with a minimum of effort, because every key stroke was wasted. Or not.



And? I'm not obligated to consult you before submitting a post, or to be bothered by your lack of concern.I'm thinking that this sentence makes no sense. I can't even guess what you are trying to say.

It's part of human nature. We see through a glass, darkly. And doubtless this pre dated the invention of the garden of Eden story by a considerable distance.

. This is your belief, which you are entitled to. It doesn't actually cut any ice in the real world where collective decisions are actually made.

. Not just a bizarre view, but totally deluded. The human race is multiplying at an unsustainable rate, the highest ever. "We need more people" is nobody's campaign slogan, for good reason.


Completely irrelevant. Unborn children are not killed because they are unborn children, but because the unique circumstances that the mother finds herself in, mean that a legal abortion is possible. Comparisons with the Holocaust etc, are just bonkers. The nations that are completely opposed to abortion can be counted on two hands. If you are looking for relief from abortion brought by an invasion from Iran, Malta and Nicaragua, you are more deluded than I thought.
Except that Malta and Nicaragua have it more right than UK. Of course you would say different but thats just you.
 
Except that Malta and Nicaragua have it more right than UK. Of course you would say different but thats just you.
Except that it is not just me. Which is the point. The only objective thing we can say about any moral judgement is whether or not it is widely held.
 
Except that it is not just me. Which is the point. The only objective thing we can say about any moral judgement is whether or not it is widely held.
You say that, we dont because our morals are God's morals, whereas your morals are whichever majority decision you favour
 
You say that, we dont because our morals are God's morals, whereas your morals are whichever majority decision you favour
The Royal "we" appears again I see, by which you presumably mean yourself and the cabal of Christians who agree with you on any specific issue.

My morals are entirely my own, generated by my own experiences. Yours on the other hand are based on the fifth and sixth hand musings of bronze age goat herders.
 
Untrue. Then you find out just what their personal opinion is. It is my opinion that your opinion on abortion is a grotesquely offensive moral outrage. It's not an objective fact, just my opinion. That doesn't make it any less strong or any less important to me.
But we aren't talking about subjective opinions here. We are talking about objective truth.

It is no more a subjective opinion to state that abortion is morally abhorrent that it is to state that slavery and racism is morally abhorrent. You are free to disagree, and that would be your subjective opinion which you are entitled to have. But your opinion would be wrong.

I can disagree that the sky is blue. I can have an opinion that the sky is green. I am entitled to the opinion, but I would be wrong.

Just becasue you have an opinion about something, doesn't make it correct.
No Sunshine. All you have shown is that on controversial moral issues, you are out of step with majority opinion.
Correct. And given that on controversial issues the majority were wrong, I would say---being out of step with the majority is an indication that I am correct. Look at the track record of the majority on slavery and the holocaust. Majority is 0 for 0 there.
And also that you have the hubris to believe that you are the custodian of moral right and wrong.
No more than a scientists is a custodian is what is or is not scientific. A scientist reports on what is. You seem to think there are no objective moral principles. That is like saying "There are no objective scientific laws."
Why should I lie to people about my moral beliefs? As I said, being an opinion doesn't devalue a moral view in any way. What does devalue it is outsourcing your morality to a false set of moral standards, totally divorced from the context of modern life and insisting without evidence that this is the only possible moral standard to live by.
Do scientists "outsource" their science to a false set of scientific laws, totally divorced from the context of modern life and insisting without evidence that these are the scientific laws?

I am not "outsourcing" anything. Just becasue you don't like the moral law doesn't entail it does not exist. What does modern life have to do with anything? More specifically, what does modern life have to do with rightness or wrongness of abortion?
Yes, many Catholics think if others support abortion then they cannot still be Catholic. They are wrong, but they do have an opinion.
Yes, and in this case, sadly, the hierarchy is all too willing to allow them to believe this.
Incidentally, you just turned the Republic of Ireland into a non-Catholic country, which will come as a surprise to all the millions of Catholics who live there and voted for the legalization of abortion.
As Jesus said: "Wide the path to destruction, narrow the path to life." (Matthew 7:13)
 
But we aren't talking about subjective opinions here. We are talking about objective truth.

It is no more a subjective opinion to state that abortion is morally abhorrent that it is to state that slavery and racism is morally abhorrent. You are free to disagree, and that would be your subjective opinion which you are entitled to have. But your opinion would be wrong.

I can disagree that the sky is blue. I can have an opinion that the sky is green. I am entitled to the opinion, but I would be wrong.

Just becasue you have an opinion about something, doesn't make it correct.
No, what we are talking about is your subjective opinion on what is objective truth. There are subjective opinions on whether Mozart is a better composer than Bach, but no objective truth. More chance of objectivity in that case than in the case of morality, since music is at least measurable. You claim objectivity, but have no evidence for it. Our opinions have the same weight, your spurious claims to objective truth notwithstanding.
Correct. And given that on controversial issues the majority were wrong, I would say---being out of step with the majority is an indication that I am correct. Look at the track record of the majority on slavery and the holocaust. Majority is 0 for 0 there.
Wrong. Laws changed because the opinions of the majority changed. Majority opinion is a hundred percent right, in my opinion on all the issues you mention. Your spurious claim to objective truth notwithstanding.

No more than a scientists is a custodian is what is or is not scientific. A scientist reports on what is. You seem to think there are no objective moral principles. That is like saying "There are no objective scientific laws."
Do scientists "outsource" their science to a false set of scientific laws, totally divorced from the context of modern life and insisting without evidence that these are the scientific laws?
Scientist base the laws they formulate on evidence. You have no evidence. Your analogy is a complete bust. Scientists change the accepted science theories in the light of new evidence. You do not, sticking to your rigid and brittle, out dated opinions, which incidentally have no evidence to support them.

I am not "outsourcing" anything. Just becasue you don't like the moral law doesn't entail it does not exist. What does modern life have to do with anything? More specifically, what does modern life have to do with rightness or wrongness of abortion?
If your moral compass is based on something external to yourself, it is outsourced. Instead of deciding for yourself what is right or wrong, you allow a priest to tell you. If that's not outsourcing, I don't know what is. You have no evidence of a moral law external to yourself.

Modern life is relevant because that's where we live now. We don't live in a society where life is cheap, disease is widespread and life expectancy is short. Abortion is a personal decision, influenced by the circumstances of the person making that decision, i.e. by modern life. What some will consider right, others will consider wrong, not least because their personal circumstances differ.
But we aren't talking about subjective opinions here. We are talking about objective truth.

It is no more a subjective opinion to state that abortion is morally abhorrent that it is to state that slavery and racism is morally abhorrent. You are free to disagree, and that would be your subjective opinion which you are entitled to have. But your opinion would be wrong.

I can disagree that the sky is blue. I can have an opinion that the sky is green. I am entitled to the opinion, but I would be wrong.

Just becasue you have an opinion about something, doesn't make it correct.

Correct. And given that on controversial issues the majority were wrong, I would say---being out of step with the majority is an indication that I am correct. Look at the track record of the majority on slavery and the holocaust. Majority is 0 for 0 there.

No more than a scientists is a custodian is what is or is not scientific. A scientist reports on what is. You seem to think there are no objective moral principles. That is like saying "There are no objective scientific laws."

Do scientists "outsource" their science to a false set of scientific laws, totally divorced from the context of modern life and insisting without evidence that these are the scientific laws?

I am not "outsourcing" anything. Just becasue you don't like the moral law doesn't entail it does not exist. What does modern life have to do with anything? More specifically, what does modern life have to do with rightness or wrongness of abortion?

Yes, and in this case, sadly, the hierarchy is all too willing to allow them to believe this.

As Jesus said: "Wide the path to destruction, narrow the path to life." (Matthew 7:13)


Yes, and in this case, sadly, the hierarchy is all too willing to allow them to believe this.

As Jesus said: "Wide the path to destruction, narrow the path to life." (Matthew 7:13)
. I note that your exclusive access to and custodianship of the objective truth allows you to declare both the hierarchy of your own hierarchical religion, and the citizens of an entire country to be wrong. This, in case you were in any doubt, is hubristic. Your subjective opinions do not cancel out a single person with the opposite opinions, let alone an entire nation, not even your own. Before you claim objective truth, evidence that it a) exists and b) is the same as your opinion, is necessary. Otherwise you are just a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
 
No, what we are talking about is your subjective opinion on what is objective truth. There are subjective opinions on whether Mozart is a better composer than Bach, but no objective truth.
False. There are objective rules in music. There is a Science to music. Music is, in essence, math. The subjective part of music is in the art--that is--how the music is interpreted and presented---is where you may get debate.
More chance of objectivity in that case than in the case of morality, since music is at least measurable.
No it isn't the least measurable. Oh look! A Jewish person is being murdered becasue they are Jewish! I'd say that is pretty objective and pretty measureable. Oh look, a minority is experiencing racism and hatred. That too is objective and measurable.
You claim objectivity, but have no evidence for it.
Again, like saying "You claim the sky is blue, but provide no evidence for it." The evidence is the blue sky right in front of your face.

The evidence for the objective wrongness of killing Jewish people for being Jewish--is-----killing Jewish people for being Jewish. The evidence for the wrongness of abortion is--abortion. The evidence for the wrongness of racism--is racism.
Our opinions have the same weight, your spurious claims to objective truth notwithstanding.
Yeah---"The sky is green" vs. "The sky is blue" are opinions that have the same weight.
Scientist base the laws they formulate on evidence.
Really? Fine.

What is the evidence that nature follows laws which can be uncovered through the use of the scientific method? What is the evidence that the laws of nature and physics hold everywhere in the universe? Right---there isn't. Scientists assume it--then go about their investigations.

For that matter, what evidence do scientists present--that all that one can know about anything and everything can be known and understood solely through the use of the scientific method?
You have no evidence. Your analogy is a complete bust. Scientists change the accepted science theories in the light of new evidence. You do not, sticking to your rigid and brittle, out dated opinions, which incidentally have no evidence to support them.
Scientists change beliefs based on new information. The laws themselves do not change, however. We just reevaluate our beliefs based on new information.

Murder is murder is murder is murder. There is no new information that changes this. What is "outdated" about saying "abortion is murder?" What "new information" has come to light that suggests "Abortion is not murder?"
If your moral compass is based on something external to yourself, it is outsourced. Instead of deciding for yourself what is right or wrong, you allow a priest to tell you.
Huh? What planet are you on? I do not to appeal to religion to know murder when I see it. I do not need to appeal to religion to know that human sexuality is for propagation of our species. That is an objective fact. I DO need to appeal to religion to know that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but I do not need to appeal to religion to know WHY human sexuality exists.

This is like saying "You need to appeal to a scientist to tell you the sky is blue."
If that's not outsourcing, I don't know what is. You have no evidence of a moral law external to yourself.
Again, that is like saying "You have no evidence that the sky is blue."

Let me put this another way: the evidence that there are two genders is as plain and obvious as the sky being blue. Yet---there are many people who outright deny this and use all kinds of sophistry to justify this denial. Now, in a culture such as this--where people deny the obvious---how am I supposed to present evidence for an objective moral law? When people throw reason itself out the window, it becomes impossible to attempt to use reason to prove anything.
Modern life is relevant because that's where we live now. We don't live in a society where life is cheap, disease is widespread and life expectancy is short.
So? What does that have to do with abortion? As if the reason abortion was illegal in the past was becasue of that. Even if this was the case, all that means is this is no longer a valid reason to argue against abortion. It does not entail there are no other valid reasons to argue against abortion.
Abortion is a personal decision, influenced by the circumstances of the person making that decision, i.e. by modern life. What some will consider right, others will consider wrong, not least because their personal circumstances differ.
What do those circumstances have to do with anything? Whenever anyone commits a horrible crime, it is a persona decision influenced by circumstances, etc. You think racists aren't influenced by circumstances? You think Hitler was not influenced by circumstances? You think Hiter's decision were not very personal to him?
I note that your exclusive access to and custodianship of the objective truth allows you to declare both the hierarchy of your own hierarchical religion, and the citizens of an entire country to be wrong. This, in case you were in any doubt, is hubristic.
"Hubristic?" Did you swallow a thesaurus?
Your subjective opinions do not cancel out a single person with the opposite opinions, let alone an entire nation, not even your own. Before you claim objective truth, evidence that it a) exists and b) is the same as your opinion, is necessary. Otherwise you are just a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
My opinions are not subjective. This is what you do not grasp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
The Royal "we" appears again I see, by which you presumably mean yourself and the cabal of Christians who agree with you on any specific issue.
well yes the 'we' as in all my fellow Christains on this forum, but we agree with the morals of God according to His Biblical Testimony.

My morals are entirely my own, generated by my own experiences.
So where they are the same as other people's, it would be where others have had theirs generated by their experiences, right? Or do others have some external reference that isnt just their own, apart from the law of course because that varies.

Yours on the other hand are based on the fifth and sixth hand musings of bronze age goat herders.
well ours include contemporary accounts as well as you have been told.

Your world is just based on your own feelings, regardless, where it suits you, of any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. Its much more faith than ours. You cant prove God doesnt exist any more than we can prove to you He does, but we have proved to you a man cant be a woman.
 
False. There are objective rules in music. There is a Science to music. Music is, in essence, math. The subjective part of music is in the art--that is--how the music is interpreted and presented---is where you may get debate.

No it isn't the least measurable. Oh look! A Jewish person is being murdered becasue they are Jewish! I'd say that is pretty objective and pretty measureable. Oh look, a minority is experiencing racism and hatred. That too is objective and measurable.

Again, like saying "You claim the sky is blue, but provide no evidence for it." The evidence is the blue sky right in front of your face.

The evidence for the objective wrongness of killing Jewish people for being Jewish--is-----killing Jewish people for being Jewish. The evidence for the wrongness of abortion is--abortion. The evidence for the wrongness of racism--is racism.

Yeah---"The sky is green" vs. "The sky is blue" are opinions that have the same weight.

Really? Fine.

What is the evidence that nature follows laws which can be uncovered through the use of the scientific method? What is the evidence that the laws of nature and physics hold everywhere in the universe? Right---there isn't. Scientists assume it--then go about their investigations.

For that matter, what evidence do scientists present--that all that one can know about anything and everything can be known and understood solely through the use of the scientific method?

Scientists change beliefs based on new information. The laws themselves do not change, however. We just reevaluate our beliefs based on new information.

Murder is murder is murder is murder. There is no new information that changes this. What is "outdated" about saying "abortion is murder?" What "new information" has come to light that suggests "Abortion is not murder?"

Huh? What planet are you on? I do not to appeal to religion to know murder when I see it. I do not need to appeal to religion to know that human sexuality is for propagation of our species. That is an objective fact. I DO need to appeal to religion to know that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but I do not need to appeal to religion to know WHY human sexuality exists.

This is like saying "You need to appeal to a scientist to tell you the sky is blue."

Again, that is like saying "You have no evidence that the sky is blue."

Let me put this another way: the evidence that there are two genders is as plain and obvious as the sky being blue. Yet---there are many people who outright deny this and use all kinds of sophistry to justify this denial. Now, in a culture such as this--where people deny the obvious---how am I supposed to present evidence for an objective moral law? When people throw reason itself out the window, it becomes impossible to attempt to use reason to prove anything.

So? What does that have to do with abortion? As if the reason abortion was illegal in the past was becasue of that. Even if this was the case, all that means is this is no longer a valid reason to argue against abortion. It does not entail there are no other valid reasons to argue against abortion.

What do those circumstances have to do with anything? Whenever anyone commits a horrible crime, it is a persona decision influenced by circumstances, etc. You think racists aren't influenced by circumstances? You think Hitler was not influenced by circumstances? You think Hiter's decision were not very personal to him?

"Hubristic?" Did you swallow a thesaurus?

My opinions are not subjective. This is what you do not grasp.
Your opinions are entirely subjective. That's the point you do not grasp. That you perceive moral wrongs doesn't make them objectively wrong. That there's almost universal agreement on some moral wrongs doesn't make them objective. That racism, sexual violence etc exist in reality, doesn't make our disapproval of them objective. Objective facts exist independently of the observer. They can be seen, measured and recorded. If every observer vanished, they would still exist. Morality is not like this. Morality exists in the mind. It cannot be measured or recorded independent of the mind. Just as every mind is different, so every moral standard is different. The only person who can make a moral judgement, is the individual in whose mind it arises. There's no moral referee or umpire to make rulings, and no rule book to be consulted. Morality has no objective existence, just like beauty. That individuals can agree that an object or person has beauty, doesn't convey objectivity to that judgement, as another person can disagree.

You have failed utterly to demonstrate objectivity in your moral judgement. You have merely declared it to exist. You point at events we both regard as morally wrong, but that doesn't prove anything at all, except that we have a common moral view shared by most people born alive today. Thinking that what you personally believe is the objective truth is laughingly arrogant. You have a view. I have a view. Where they are the same, fine. Where they differ, also fine. It's the law that defines what we are permitted or not permitted to do, not morality.
 
Your opinions are entirely subjective. That's the point you do not grasp. That you perceive moral wrongs doesn't make them objectively wrong. That there's almost universal agreement on some moral wrongs doesn't make them objective. That racism, sexual violence etc exist in reality, doesn't make our disapproval of them objective. Objective facts exist independently of the observer. They can be seen, measured and recorded. If every observer vanished, they would still exist. Morality is not like this. Morality exists in the mind. It cannot be measured or recorded independent of the mind. Just as every mind is different, so every moral standard is different. The only person who can make a moral judgement, is the individual in whose mind it arises. There's no moral referee or umpire to make rulings, and no rule book to be consulted. Morality has no objective existence, just like beauty. That individuals can agree that an object or person has beauty, doesn't convey objectivity to that judgement, as another person can disagree.

You have failed utterly to demonstrate objectivity in your moral judgement. You have merely declared it to exist. You point at events we both regard as morally wrong, but that doesn't prove anything at all, except that we have a common moral view shared by most people born alive today. Thinking that what you personally believe is the objective truth is laughingly arrogant. You have a view. I have a view. Where they are the same, fine. Where they differ, also fine. It's the law that defines what we are permitted or not permitted to do, not morality.
If his opinions were subjective to any degree most music could be unrecognisable.
 
Congratulations! The winner of this morning's most fatuous comment goes to...
On the contrary I was just pointing out what romish said is correct..

Also.when you say objective facts exist independent of the observer, thats what we have al been telling you. So.it also depends on the observer, whether they are able to acknowledge the objective fact or, as in many cases like yours, unwilling to acknowledge the objective fact and unwilling to be challenged on it
 
Congratulations! The winner of this morning's most fatuous comment goes to...
Romish point was excellent. How one interprets the music script doesnt change the music script. One can play notes fast or slow, loud or soft, but one cant interpret the notes to be different ones. One can play C G D Em as D A E Fm but one has to recognise its a different key, one cant 'interpret' it as F C#m B Gm and say it just the same music or tune.
 
Interesting twist...


Reuters story

To the untrained eye, they're using the differences in religious belief to argue that the anti-abortion bill infringes on their religious freedom - to have an abortion when they choose to.

As the story notes, this bill was already put on hold in September, so this ruling doesn't change much. Nonetheless, I'll be curious to see how this injunction shakes out...
How does not having access to abortion on demand impinge upon their religious beliefs? What is their argument?
 
Romish point was excellent. How one interprets the music script doesnt change the music script. One can play notes fast or slow, loud or soft, but one cant interpret the notes to be different ones. One can play C G D Em as D A E Fm but one has to recognise its a different key, one cant 'interpret' it as F C#m B Gm and say it just the same music or tune.
So what? One's moral response to an event doesn't affect the objective facts of that event. People die in small boats crossing the channel. That's an objective fact. The moral responses to that objective fact differ massively. It isn't music that is analogous to morality, but music appreciation. Morality is not a fact. It is a response to facts.
 
How does other people having access to abortion impinge on your religious belief?
I was curious what argument they gave that was based on religion as opposed to a right to control a growing human in their body?

I view abortion as a taking away of a human life. There should be laws to protect human life.
 
I was curious what argument they gave that was based on religion as opposed to a right to control a growing human in their body?

I view abortion as a taking away of a human life. There should be laws to protect human life.
I too am curious about the argument. In my view, abortion is an entirely secular policy decision. If your religious beliefs preclude you from doing it, don't do it. In the same way as some religious dietary requirements might prevent you from eating pork. No-one has a problem with this. I would have a problem with people telling me that I cannot eat pork myself. Even if I don't like pork, I would fight for the right for others to eat it.
 
Your opinions are entirely subjective. That's the point you do not grasp. That you perceive moral wrongs doesn't make them objectively wrong. That there's almost universal agreement on some moral wrongs doesn't make them objective. That racism, sexual violence etc exist in reality, doesn't make our disapproval of them objective.
And yet the very people claiming this---ACT and BEHAVE as though they ARE objective. This is a point YOU, sir, are not grasping.

When you see people arguing against racism, they aren't simply arguing that one should not be racist becasue racism is against the law, they ACT and BEHAVE as if one has an MORAL OBLIGATION to NOT be racist. They ACT and BEHAVE as though not being racist is a DUTY, a GOOD, something one should not be becasue it is morally ABORHANT, not simply becasue it is against the law.

As I said, the moral relativist is always relativist--until their ox gets gored. Then you see how relativist they really are. Let me spell it out for you: when the moral relativist's ox gets gored, THEY AREN'T RELATIVIST NO MORE.
Objective facts exist independently of the observer. They can be seen, measured and recorded. If every observer vanished, they would still exist.
Oh? What evidence can you provide for this? How would we know that things exist without an observer--since the evidence that they exist is observer dependent?
Morality is not like this. Morality exists in the mind.
So? Why should that mean it isn't objective?
It cannot be measured or recorded independent of the mind.
So?
Just as every mind is different, so every moral standard is different.
Um, no. Again, when the moral relativist's ox gets gored, all of a sudden, there is an objective moral standard.
The only person who can make a moral judgement, is the individual in whose mind it arises.
Except when that person's ox gets gored.
There's no moral referee or umpire to make rulings, and no rule book to be consulted.
Hence, why it is interesting that children when playing appeal to some unseen standard when they yell "No fair!" and while the other players may disagree, they all know what the child is talking about and referring to.
Morality has no objective existence, just like beauty.
Beauty is not at all subjective. How can you look at Fallen Leaf Lake, or Lake Tahoe, or the 10 peaks, or the Northern Lights and say "beauty is not objective?"

Oh right--you don't really believe that. You just have to state that for the sake of consistency.
That individuals can agree that an object or person has beauty, doesn't convey objectivity to that judgement, as another person can disagree.
Then you have to ask why the person is disagreeing that something objectively beautiful, isn't. Maybe there is something wrong with that person? I mean you have people denying reality all the time--yet we do not go "Oh, well, reality is subjective becasue a person says it isn't there."

If someone said the sky is green, you wouldn't go "Oh, well, I guess the color of the sky is subjective."
You have failed utterly to demonstrate objectivity in your moral judgement. You have merely declared it to exist.
And you have merely declared it NOT to exist. So back at you champ!
 
Good. Tell a minority that the idea we should not be racist is "just an opinion." See how much they think it is only an opinion. Tell a Jewish person that the idea that Hitler should not have done what he did--is just an opinion. See how much they agree with you.

Everything is only an opinion until it is your proverbial ox that is getting gored.
Thinking that one's opinion is not an opinion, changes nothing - "Hitler was wrong" is an opinion, as far as anybody has been able to prove.

An opinion that I share - and share very, very strongly - but I still see it for the opinion that it is.
 
Back
Top