Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

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.
And if your secular beliefs preclude you from racism, then don't be racist. But don't tell me what I can and cannot do.

See my point? My objection to abortion 1) isn't based solely on my religious beliefs. I do not need religion to tell me murder is wrong. My religion does tell me that, but one does not need religion to know it. 2) My objection to abortion is not a simple matter of taste, personal whim, or opinion. My objection to abortion is that it is morally abhorrent. "IF you do not like abortion, don't have one" treats the position on abortion as though it were just a matter of taste or personal opinion, just like "If you don't like racism, do not be racist" does the same thing.

If you asked a minority whether they thought racism was alright, they would tell you it isn't. If the unborn child could talk and you could ask the child "You mind if a doctor goes in with medical forceps, pierces your skull, sucks out your brain, and cuts your arms and legs off, and then sucks them out? Do you mind if we do that to you? Or if you prefer, the doctor can stick a needle in your mother's womb with a powerful chemical that will burn you to death" Do you think the child would say "Yeah, dude! Women's rights and all! I am all for it! Go for it! We isn't ought to ever tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, even if it means murdering me!"

You see, sir, the Constitution exists to protect the weak, not the strong.
In the same way as some religious dietary requirements might prevent you from eating pork.
I see. Seriously dude? I mean really--SERIOUSLY DUDE!? You think---abortion-----is on the same level as some religious dietary restriction?

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.
Yeah---there dude----um, here is the thing-----this is an apples to cars comparison.

You seriously want to equate abortion with religious dietary restrictions?

Alright:

"If your secular beliefs preclude you from racism, don't be racist. In the same way that your secular beliefs preclude you from eating meat. I would have a problem with people telling me I cannot eat meat myself, even if I do not like meat, but I would fight for the right for others to eat it. I have a problem with others telling me I cannot be racist, but if you don't like racism, don't be racist."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
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?"
By realizing that objectivity must be measured/confirmed outside of my own mind.

The moment we get a beauty-o-meter whose measurements were not calibrated by a mind, I will believe in the objectivity of beauty.
If someone said the sky is green, you wouldn't go "Oh, well, I guess the color of the sky is subjective."
We can point spectrometers at the sky and determine the wavelengths and strengths of the light that are present.

... where's the beatuy-o-meter?
 
By realizing that objectivity must be measured/confirmed outside of my own mind.

The moment we get a beauty-o-meter whose measurements were not calibrated by a mind, I will believe in the objectivity of beauty.

We can point spectrometers at the sky and determine the wavelengths and strengths of the light that are present.

... where's the beauty-o-meter?
What scientist or scientists have conclusively proven, by what experiment or experiments, where, and peer reviewed it and confirmed that all objective truth is something that can be measured using the tools of science?

There are some things you just know--without being able to articulate how you know it.
 
What scientist or scientists have conclusively proven, by what experiment or experiments, where, and peer reviewed it and confirmed that all objective truth is something that can be measured using the tools of science?
objective - not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

Please show that beauty exists independent of minds.
 
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.
The point made which I was also pointing you to, is that in music the score of a work can be interpreted but the score cant be different by 'interpretation'.
So when for example you guys respond to us posting scripture as our 'interpretation', that isnt our interpretation, that is like the musix score.
 
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.
Wrong. Completely wrong. If I think that in my opinion a moral wrong is being committed, then I can and do speak out against it. I try to persuade others to accept my point of view. I think that opposing access to abortion is morally wrong, so I speak against it. I'm not trying to turn abortion rights into an objective truth. Im trying to turn it into a universally accepted subjective truth. I'll settle for majority acceptance and legal recognition. You assume that others think in the same way as you, just coming up with different answers. You are mistaken.
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?
Because solipsism is ridiculous. Are that what you are arguing?

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.
That's actually an interesting example. Studies have been done on this. They found that broadly speaking, children up to age 6 will declare that rules are written in stone and completely immutable, and also that cheating is widespread. After that age, children negotiate local rules within the group, and cheating is much rather. Which group are you in?

More directly, having a moral sense is clearly a fact. Even animals have a sense of fairness. As I've said, many moral ideas are innate and virtually universal. What we are honing in on are controversial moral decisions. Your view is that because everyone agrees on the concept of fairness, therefore every possible moral dilemma has an objective and true answer. This just doesn't follow. We agree on some moral questions and disagree on others. Even those we agree on were wildly unfashionable in the past. This is the hallmark of subjectivity. Are flared trousers fashionable? Is that viewpoint objective? Just because moral decisions are more important (arguably) doesn't make them any less subjective or subject to change.
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?"
. So what? You choose examples of near universal agreement. Yet standards of beauty vary widely in the Victorian era, such landscapes would have been considered garish and untamed. Instead of looking at directly, they would have used ornately framed mirrors.

Oh right--you don't really believe that. You just have to state that for the sake of consistency.
Oh right - you don't understand a person's point of view, so you accuse them of lying and really meaning something else

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."
Or maybe, just maybe, the person who says he disagrees with you is not lying, and actually doesn't like Mozart, or Picasso or Brutalist architecture. Perhaps, just perhaps, perfectly normal people disagree with you about some things. I know that would be a huge shock to you, but try and imagine a world where disagreement over ideas, important or trivial, is normal and common. Can you think how such a world would differ from what we actually see in reality? Or do you really think that every who disagrees with you has something wrong with them or is lying to save face?
And you have merely declared it NOT to exist. So back at you champ!
I have declared that unicorns don't exist, for the same reason. A lack of objective evidence.
 
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.
But you would need some rational reasons for your secular position. If its illegal and immoral to kill the offspring after 13 weeks in many countries, one could argue the UK law is immoral. After all there is no change to the offspring whether it is in France or UK.
 
And if your secular beliefs preclude you from racism, then don't be racist. But don't tell me what I can and cannot do.

See my point? My objection to abortion 1) isn't based solely on my religious beliefs. I do not need religion to tell me murder is wrong. My religion does tell me that, but one does not need religion to know it. 2) My objection to abortion is not a simple matter of taste, personal whim, or opinion. My objection to abortion is that it is morally abhorrent. "IF you do not like abortion, don't have one" treats the position on abortion as though it were just a matter of taste or personal opinion, just like "If you don't like racism, do not be racist" does the same thing.

If you asked a minority whether they thought racism was alright, they would tell you it isn't. If the unborn child could talk and you could ask the child "You mind if a doctor goes in with medical forceps, pierces your skull, sucks out your brain, and cuts your arms and legs off, and then sucks them out? Do you mind if we do that to you? Or if you prefer, the doctor can stick a needle in your mother's womb with a powerful chemical that will burn you to death" Do you think the child would say "Yeah, dude! Women's rights and all! I am all for it! Go for it! We isn't ought to ever tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, even if it means murdering me!"

You see, sir, the Constitution exists to protect the weak, not the strong.

I see. Seriously dude? I mean really--SERIOUSLY DUDE!? You think---abortion-----is on the same level as some religious dietary restriction?


Yeah---there dude----um, here is the thing-----this is an apples to cars comparison.

You seriously want to equate abortion with religious dietary restrictions?

Alright:

"If your secular beliefs preclude you from racism, don't be racist. In the same way that your secular beliefs preclude you from eating meat. I would have a problem with people telling me I cannot eat meat myself, even if I do not like meat, but I would fight for the right for others to eat it. I have a problem with others telling me I cannot be racist, but if you don't like racism, don't be racist."
I don't tell you not to be racist. I support laws that tell you not to do racist things. I know that you personally don't base your objection to abortion on religious grounds, just as the atheists who are opposed to abortion do. I was talking specifically about those that do, and you can't say they don't exist. I would also agree with you that people who disagree with something on purely atheist grounds, should not use those grounds to direct what other people should do, though I'm struggling to find an example.
 
But you would need some rational reasons for your secular position. If its illegal and immoral to kill the offspring after 13 weeks in many countries, one could argue the UK law is immoral. After all there is no change to the offspring whether it is in France or UK.
You are welcome to argue that the UK position is immoral, irrespective of the position elsewhere. Your moral views are your own. How you come to them is your business.
 
You are welcome to argue that the UK position is immoral, irrespective of the position elsewhere. Your moral views are your own. How you come to them is your business.
Its about the logic and the contradition itself, which stands by itself. You are the one who supports abortion up to 24 weeks as in the UK, rather than 11,12 or 13 weeks in most other places where abortion is legal. If you were serious about your beliefs you would be concerned not just about our position, but about their position too.
 
Its about the logic and the contradition itself, which stands by itself. You are the one who supports abortion up to 24 weeks as in the UK, rather than 11,12 or 13 weeks in most other places where abortion is legal. If you were serious about your beliefs you would be concerned not just about our position, but about their position too.
I am. Your position is worse. As an analogy imagine three refugee camps, one that provides no food, one that provides one meal a day and one that provides three meals a day. Why would you spend time and effort arguing against the camp that provides some food rather than the one where people are starving?
 
I am. Your position is worse. As an analogy imagine three refugee camps, one that provides no food, one that provides one meal a day and one that provides three meals a day. Why would you spend time and effort arguing against the camp that provides some food rather than the one where people are starving?
If you were then you would have addressed their position to some extent.
Your analogy is bizarre. An analogy would be where there is a camp where there is enough food for everyone to live, thats our position and a camp where there is only enough food for 13 weeks and another where there ia only enough food for 24 weeks.
You see if there is no objective rationale for abortion limits, then its just subjective nonsense
 
I am. Your position is worse. As an analogy imagine three refugee camps, one that provides no food, one that provides one meal a day and one that provides three meals a day. Why would you spend time and effort arguing against the camp that provides some food rather than the one where people are starving?
You see at the moment the UK police have trouble removing just stop oil protesters illegally blocking roads and preventing ambulances and people getting to funerals etc. but peaceful 'protest' gathering outside a n abortion clinic gets an exclusion zone.

The lawlessness increases as people wont take no for an answer
 
I don't tell you not to be racist. I support laws that tell you not to do racist things.
Good. No, great, in fact. I do not tell anyone not to have an abortion. I just support laws that tell them not to have an abortion.

Looks like we agree, finally. Neither of us actually tells anyone what to do or not do. We just support laws that tell them what to do or not to do.
I know that you personally don't base your objection to abortion on religious grounds, just as the atheists who are opposed to abortion do. I was talking specifically about those that do, and you can't say they don't exist.
Actually, it depends on whom I am arguing with.

If I was arguing with Joe Biden, my argument would be different than if I was arguing with an atheist. Joe Biden masquerades as a Catholic. That is problem one. Our Catholic hierarchy allows him to do so unchallenged. That is problem 2. That is actually the bigger issue in my opinion--that is--that our hierarchy sticks their proverbial heads in the sand, preferring to deny the problem, rather than confront the problem.

In any case, I try to form my arguments based on the person. Telling an atheist that abortion is wrong becasue God says so--is not an argument. Thus, if I argue with an atheist I have to appeal to philosophy--which does not require belief in a god or gods. On the other hand, if I have a Joe BIden who masquerades as Catholic, my first order of business would be to help him see that if he wants to support abortion, fine. He needs to stop masquerading as a Catholic. Once I help him to see that, then, we could debate abortion on religious and secular grounds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Good. No, great, in fact. I do not tell anyone not to have an abortion. I just support laws that tell them not to have an abortion.

Looks like we agree, finally. Neither of us actually tells anyone what to do or not do. We just support laws that tell them what to do or not to do.

Actually, it depends on whom I am arguing with.

If I was arguing with Joe Biden, my argument would be different than if I was arguing with an atheist. Joe Biden masquerades as a Catholic. That is problem one. Our Catholic hierarchy allows him to do so unchallenged. That is problem 2. That is actually the bigger issue in my opinion--that is--that our hierarchy sticks their proverbial heads in the sand, preferring to deny the problem, rather than confront the problem.

In any case, I try to form my arguments based on the person. Telling an atheist that abortion is wrong becasue God says so--is not an argument. Thus, if I argue with an atheist I have to appeal to philosophy--which does not require belief in a god or gods. On the other hand, if I have a Joe BIden who masquerades as Catholic, my first order of business would be to help him see that if he wants to support abortion, fine. He needs to stop masquerading as a Catholic. Once I help him to see that, then, we could debate abortion on religious and secular grounds.
I am so sorry. I didn't realise that you were the Pope. Or are you the person who decides whether or not the Pope is correct about something? Or are you just a Catholic with an opinion, which differs from the opinions of other Catholics?
 
You see at the moment the UK police have trouble removing just stop oil protesters illegally blocking roads and preventing ambulances and people getting to funerals etc. but peaceful 'protest' gathering outside a n abortion clinic gets an exclusion zone.

The lawlessness increases as people wont take no for an answer
Which indicates just how unpleasant the behaviour of the "peaceful" protesters is, and also the vulnerability of their targets.
 
I am so sorry. I didn't realise that you were the Pope. Or are you the person who decides whether or not the Pope is correct about something? Or are you just a Catholic with an opinion, which differs from the opinions of other Catholics?
He meant Roman Catholic doctrine, not the Pope. Who are you to judge the Pope?
 
I am so sorry. I didn't realise that you were the Pope. Or are you the person who decides whether or not the Pope is correct about something? Or are you just a Catholic with an opinion, which differs from the opinions of other Catholics?
I didn't say "the pope" I said "The hierarchy." The USCCB (American bishops) does not need to wait on Pope Francis to do something, nor do they need his permission to do something. A diocesan bishop does not even need direction from the USCCB or permission from Pope Francis to do something.

Where did you get the idea that Catholics aren't allowed to be critical of their leaders, or call out their hypocrisy?

I am a Catholic that knows Church teaching. The hierarchy is not above the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Back
Top