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. 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.
You don't think very highly of the little humans inside of women's wombs if you compare them with pork. Abortion is more than a religious issue. I'm sure there are some atheists who might be against abortion.
I'm trying to avoid posting on abortion threads.
 
You don't think very highly of the little humans inside of women's wombs if you compare them with pork. Abortion is more than a religious issue. I'm sure there are some atheists who might be against abortion.
I'm trying to avoid posting on abortion threads.
You are absolutely right. Abortion is not a religious issue at all . There are people from all faiths and none on all sides of the debate. Which is why I say that no atheist would base their argument, either for or against abortion, on their absence of faith. I can see why faith might influence the thinking of those who oppose, and support abortion too. The religious argument is clearly not very strong if there are believers on both sides.

The abortion debate here can become virulent because both sides believe very strongly in their position. The moral urge to protect the innocent and vulnerable, which applies both ways, is very powerful. I doubt anyone is persuaded here, and if you don't come here, all you will miss is some caustic attempts at wit, pointless legal arguments about the definition of murder and some insights into the mindset of the opposing view.
 
You are absolutely right. Abortion is not a religious issue at all .
Yes that is right, we have been telling you that

There are people from all faiths and none on all sides of the debate.
Of course, we have been telling you that. Anyway, we look at the issue rather than what tis person or that person happens to claim. We have been telling you that as well.

Which is why I say that no atheist would base their argument, either for or against abortion, on their absence of faith.
so irrelevant

we know I can see why faith might influence the thinking of those who oppose, and support abortion too. The religious argument is clearly not very strong if there are believers on both sides.
or it maybe if we look at the issue rather than this person says this and that person says that. We have done this dozens of times

The abortion debate here can become virulent because both sides believe very strongly in their position. The moral urge to protect the innocent and vulnerable, which applies both ways, is very powerful. I doubt anyone is persuaded here, and if you don't come here, all you will miss is some caustic attempts at wit, pointless legal arguments about the definition of murder and some insights into the mindset of the opposing view.
ah so who is the innocent and who is the vulnerable? Seems for you the moral urge would depend on what you happen to feel is innocence and vulnerability
 
Yes that is right, we have been telling you that


Of course, we have been telling you that. Anyway, we look at the issue rather than what tis person or that person happens to claim. We have been telling you that as well.

so irrelevant

or it maybe if we look at the issue rather than this person says this and that person says that. We have done this dozens of times

ah so who is the innocent and who is the vulnerable? Seems for you the moral urge would depend on what you happen to feel is innocence and vulnerability
Your attempt to agree with me while simultaneously arguing that I'm wrong, is reinforcing your customary incoherence.
 
Thats the moral urge. I asked who is the innocent and who is the vulnerable.
Both sides claim a vulnerable and innocent party. It doesn't get us anywhere. That's exactly the point I'm making. You just want to argue for the sake of it.
 
Both sides claim a vulnerable and innocent party. It doesn't get us anywhere. That's exactly the point I'm making. You just want to argue for the sake of it.
I know what both sides CLAIM. That isn't the question that is being asked and you know it.

Who is the vulnerable party and who is the innocent party?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Both sides claim a vulnerable and innocent party. It doesn't get us anywhere. That's exactly the point I'm making. You just want to argue for the sake of it.
Of course both sides claiming something doesnt get anywhere. Examining what they are claiming might, one side might be wrong, which is why we are asking you whom you think are the vulnerable and the innocent
 
Ok so can Temujin understand the question and its simple logic, or is he refusing to?
 
I know what both sides CLAIM. That isn't the question that is being asked and you know it.

Who is the vulnerable party and who is the innocent party?
It doesn't matter. But to play your game out, those in favour of abortion say that the woman is both innocent and vulnerable, while those opposed to another day that the unborn child is both innocent and vulnerable. So what?

What do you mean by innocent and vulnerable? Innocent to me means incapable of doing harm, while vulnerable means at risk of damage or destruction and unable to defend itself. Both terms apply to an unborn child, but again, so what? The also apply to a corpse. Or to a cabbage growing in a field. They only have force in this context because of an unstated assumption, that the unborn child is a person.

A person to me is a human, born and alive. For you the definition is different. It is this difference that is at the heart of the controversy over abortion. Banging on about the innocence and vulnerability of the unborn child is no more persuasive than saying the same about the cabbage. The attribute of the unborn child that's in dispute is not the attribute that it shares with the cabbage, but that which it does not share with the woman, i.e being a person.

I quite understand that you want to keep the argument centred on innocence and vulnerability, because these terms are laden with emotional overtones. But as they apply equally to a cabbage or a corpse, I find them unpersuasive.
 
It doesn't matter. But to play your game out, those in favour of abortion say that the woman is both innocent and vulnerable, while those opposed to another day that the unborn child is both innocent and vulnerable. So what?

What do you mean by innocent and vulnerable? Innocent to me means incapable of doing harm, while vulnerable means at risk of damage or destruction and unable to defend itself. Both terms apply to an unborn child, but again, so what? The also apply to a corpse. Or to a cabbage growing in a field. They only have force in this context because of an unstated assumption, that the unborn child is a person.

A person to me is a human, born and alive. For you the definition is different. It is this difference that is at the heart of the controversy over abortion. Banging on about the innocence and vulnerability of the unborn child is no more persuasive than saying the same about the cabbage. The attribute of the unborn child that's in dispute is not the attribute that it shares with the cabbage, but that which it does not share with the woman, i.e being a person.

I quite understand that you want to keep the argument centred on innocence and vulnerability, because these terms are laden with emotional overtones. But as they apply equally to a cabbage or a corpse, I find them unpersuasive.
Its not a game. You made the claim about vulnerable and innocent.
The unborn is vulnerable because it can get killed; cant get more vulnerable than that. The unborn is innocent because it hasnt done anything at all, let alone wrong.
So that is correct for one side.
The woman has chosen to have sex and consequently conceived. So.not vulnerable or innocent.

Once again you have made a generalised claim based on what people say, assuming we will go along with it. As you see we dont so you will need to tell us how the woman by default, is innocent and vulnerable
 
Last edited:
Its not a game. You made the claim about vulnerable and innocent.
The unborn is vulnerable because it can get killed; cant get more vulnerable than that. The unborn is innocent because it hasnt done anything at all, let alone wrong.
So that is correct for one side.
The woman has chosen to have sex and consequently conceived. So.not vulnerable or innocent.

Once again you have made a generalised claim based on what people say, assuming we will go along with it. As you see we dont so you will need to tell us how the woman by default, is innocent and vulnerable
In the way I am using the terms, the unborn is neither vulnerable nor innocent, or at least no more so than a cabbage or a corpse. Would you call either of them vulnerable or innocent?

Rape victims are both vulnerable and innocent. Obviously not all women are rape victims. Some are however, compared to no unborn children.

As I said, the argument is specious, a sideline to the real issue. Typically, all you can address is the specious sideline.
 
It doesn't matter. But to play your game out, those in favour of abortion say that the woman is both innocent and vulnerable, while those opposed to another day that the unborn child is both innocent and vulnerable. So what?
So what nothing.

I know what both sides claim. What do YOU claim? Who is innocent and venerable, say you? Why?
What do you mean by innocent and vulnerable? Innocent to me means incapable of doing harm, while vulnerable means at risk of damage or destruction and unable to defend itself. Both terms apply to an unborn child, but again, so what? The also apply to a corpse. Or to a cabbage growing in a field. They only have force in this context because of an unstated assumption, that the unborn child is a person.
Dude, seriously? This is as ridiculous as when you attempted to compare the issue of abortion as a religious issue with religious dietary laws. Yes, the issue of abortion is just like Friday abstinence from meat, or the Jewish kosher laws. :rolleyes: Let me tell you something: If Joe Biden was pro-life---he can go right ahead and eat meat on Friday in Lent. My point? Some issues are far more weightier that others. I assure you--Biden is not going to get into heaven becasue he struts about with a Rosary and a Bible, is very best excellent friends with Pope Francis, and abstained from meat on Friday during Lent. No one does.

You sound like Sonya Sotomayor-who apparently doesn't know the difference between a corpse and a living person either. Inanimate objects are harmless, to be sure. But they do not have rights becasue they are not persons. A corpse is an inanimate object. A fetus on the other hand is a child at a certain stage of development. Now, you, sir, can be excused for not knowing this, a SCOTUS justice should be able to tell the difference. I mean---we are talking the SCOTUS here. How does someone get on the SCOTUS who doesn't know the difference between a corpse, which is dead, and a fetus which is alive? Well, then again, you have lawyers who, when asked "What is a woman" reply "I am not a biologist. I cannot speak to that." As if you have to have a PhD in human biology to know the difference between a man and a woman. You also have people who think men can get pregnant. So I guess I should not be surprised when you cannot tell the difference between a corpse and a fetus.

Funny thing with abortion supporters: they think animals should have rights. In the state of New York, it is illegal to get you cat declawed becasue declawing cats is cruel. No it isn't--but the point is that cats have more rights than actual people in New York. If we can give animals rights, why not unborn children?
A person to me is a human, born and alive.
Why should location have anything to do with personhood? What makes birth the definitive marker? What was that person just prior to birth? Why should we NOT consider it a person just becasue its location is the womb?
For you the definition is different. It is this difference that is at the heart of the controversy over abortion. Banging on about the innocence and vulnerability of the unborn child is no more persuasive than saying the same about the cabbage.
Yeah---if you cannot tell the difference between cabbage and a fetus, sure it isn't persuasive.

Then again, you banging on and on about "women's rights" "healthcare" "choice" "freedom" blah, blah, blah, isn't persuasive either--becasue those are red herrings.

If a fetus isn't a person no one would care about abortion. I mean--do you see pro-lifers arguing that gallbladder surgery should be illegal?
The attribute of the unborn child that's in dispute is not the attribute that it shares with the cabbage, but that which it does not share with the woman, i.e being a person.
Well, that and sentience. A cabbage is alive but not sentient. Also, while a fetus is not yet able to reason, it has the capacity to reason--which is what makes it different from a corpse, cabbage, or animal.
I quite understand that you want to keep the argument centred on innocence and vulnerability, because these terms are laden with emotional overtones.
Actually, my argument is that a fetus should not be murdered becasue a fetus is a person.
But as they apply equally to a cabbage or a corpse, I find them unpersuasive.
Yeah--you and Justice Sotomayor.
 
Last edited:
In the way I am using the terms, the unborn is neither vulnerable nor innocent, or at least no more so than a cabbage or a corpse. Would you call either of them vulnerable or innocent?

Rape victims are both vulnerable and innocent. Obviously not all women are rape victims. Some are however, compared to no unborn children.

As I said, the argument is specious, a sideline to the real issue. Typically, all you can address is the specious sideline.
Ah so the unborn who can be killed is not vulnerable. What do you mean by vulnerable?
So the unborn isnt innocent. What has it done wrong?
 
Back
Top