Religious freedom?

[The Butt]

That's a poor argument. Most if not all anti-abortionists view the fetus as human life of some form and so to them it's a kind of injustice, even a murder.

But it's not, so that means nothing.

The parallel you're pushing is akin to saying to people that are against capital punishment (execution) to just not execute anybody. If you view it as murder your values wouldn't allow you to just let it happen.

That's not similar at all. Executing someone isn't a service that can be offered in a situation where it would complicate or endanger the life of the recipient. You're reaching. Hard.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part which is why I reject your last point. It's not about feelings it's about morals and values.

Morals and values are in essence nothing more than feelings.

Those values and morals are also not closed to non-religious people, Christopher Hitchens famously was against abortion except in extreme cases.

Irrelevant.

Again: Do you deny that people's lives and rights over their own bodies, are infinitely more important than the simple "morals" of only a subset of the human population? Yes or no? Please answer this.

 

[CiG]

But it's not, so that means nothing.

Prove it. In my experience the science is not so conclusive.

That's not similar at all. Executing someone isn't a service that can be offered in a situation where it would complicate or endanger the life of the recipient. You're reaching. Hard.

Wrong. I'm not. You're just purposely being stubborn and entrenching yourself instead of trying to see where I'm coming from.

If you see abortion as an injustice, "just don't have one yourself" isn't a substantial justification for co-existence with such an act in society.
It's why vegans are usually also activists because "just don't eat animals yourself" isn't a sufficient response for someone that has a sense of a moral duty.

Do you know how little the percentage is for abortions that are performed due to a health risk on the mother's side? I read that it was a tiny portion of abortions, so hinging your entire argument on instances that are rare within the context of abortion is quite weak.

What you should be arguing for is abortion availability based on the values of the sexual liberation movement.

Morals and values are in essence nothing more than feelings.

If you're going to take a post-modernist view on things like values and morals then rights are also in essence nothing more than concepts based on subjective human emotion.

I don't personally see it that way.

Irrelevant.

Again: Do you deny that people's lives and rights over their own bodies, are infinitely more important than the simple "morals" of only a subset of the human population? Yes or no? Please answer this

It's not irrelevant as you made this about religion specifically.

No, there are plenty of things you can't do to your own body just because you want to. Whether it's illegal or simply disapproved of by the wider society.

Is it illegal to ruin your children's upbringing by using drugs to the point that you're not a competent parent and so the kids go and live with their extended family? No, do you have the right to do this at the expense of your children? Yes.

Also, without providing conclusive proof that the fetus isn't a human you can't define this as an issue of body sovereignty.
There are laws in place that change the severity of a crime when the victim involved in a physical altercation loses their fetus as a result. Are you against this kind of law?

Just to clarify, I'm pro-abortion.

 

[Gargamel Bojangles]

I know plenty of people who are not religious but are still opposed to abortion.

 

[CiG]

I know plenty of people who are not religious but are still opposed to abortion.

That's me, essentially.

 

[benlacy2112]

I am an atheist( I used to be an atheistic satanist, thinking about reconverting),
And, someone told me that I should not be able to have religious freedom, because I'm an atheist, and according to him, atheism is not a religion.


I have a few questions:


Does the American government really give it's citizens religious freedom?
Does atheism count as a religion?
Does the American version of religious freedom give me the freedom to not be religious?


The only thing I took from this guy's argument with me was that he thinks that everyone in the world MUST be religious, because a god that some people don't even believe in said so.
He also continued to threaten me with the fictional concept of hell.


What drives people to think this?
It really makes no sense to me.
Also, if anyone viewing this thread is a Christian, I do not mean to offend you.
I believe that anyone should be able to choose and express their religion freely, as long as they don't do something like killing someone as a ritual.

Wading into the deepest of waters, I see.

I am an atheist in the most basic sense, that I am "without belief in any gods". There are those that think atheism is the positive claim against gods, but I don't quite include myself in that camp. Close, but not quite.

To answer your specific concerns:

Does the American government really give it's citizens religious freedom?

Yes. In the US, citizens can believe in whatever they want, without legal repercussions.*

Does atheism count as a religion?

To some, it does. But, as the old saying goes, is not collecting stamps a hobby? This is harder for some to grasp than it should be.

Does the American version of religious freedom give me the freedom to not be religious?

Yes, it does. But, the vast majority of Americans are some form of Christian, with a not-insignificant number of those working towards something like a theocracy.

My final thought on the matter:
Religion is something that gives a great many people a lot of comfort. Rationality flies out the window when it comes to this desire for comfort. It's basically a coping mechanism for life that some of us have, and some of us don't.

With that out of the way, I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SHOW IN SEPTEMBER!!

 

[EimAhFiggit]

• Never mind how Islamic culture treats its women, so its not just a tirade against Christianity or Catholicism.

Meanwhile the hundreds of LGBT Muslims and Muslim Allies are ignored along with Muslim Feminist... Tell me why Anti-theist emos like when you are trying to look like you are not just anti-Christian Bigots go after Islam.. there is a lot of Homophobia among Hindus along with sexism.. Does that Human-rights Groups have declared many parts of India worse then Afghanistan under the Taliban for women just not a popular... Oh wait is it because Hindus will sue you like they did with the Video Game Smite...

 

[The Butt]

I couldn't read half of what you said because your grammar is so poor. Sorry.

 

[CiG]

I didn't even bother. Something edgy or something.

 

[RedStorm]

I didn't even bother. Something edgy or something.

Why would you say you are anti abortion? First off I would like to say I am not religious in any respect, the way I view abortion is that it is very much necessary but can be taken advantage of and over used. Like I don't see the point of doing it more then twice a year, my dad told me about an employee they had that had gone to take her ninth abortion in the same year. Thats callous and foolish IMO

 

[CiG]

Why would you say you are anti abortion? First off I would like to say I am not religious in any respect, the way I view abortion is that it is very much necessary but can be taken advantage of and over used. Like I don't see the point of doing it more then twice a year, my dad told me about an employee they had that had gone to take her ninth abortion in the same year. Thats callous and foolish IMO

Yeah I used to know this bitch that had like 7 abortions before she even hit the age of 21.

I'm against abortion in my private life, but I'm not in support of making abortion illegal.

The reason I'm against abortion in my personal life is because I don't think it's appropriate to use abortion as a form of contraception. There are way too many preventative measures available before it even reaches that point.

 

[RedStorm]

agreed

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

I would never make it illegal, but there needs to be impactful strictures on it that ensure it's minimized. I would say no abortion period after 20 weeks, unless the child will die immediately outside the womb regardless or the mother is in severe danger of dying while giving birth. Absolutely no abortions for retards who sleep around and never use condoms or pills. Have the kid, and either put them up for adoption afterwards or raise them. If it's a case of incest, pedophilia, rape, etc., 20 weeks to abort the child and a consolation and verification hotline should be given.

 

[CiG]

Maybe just put a limit on how many abortions someone can have. Five seems reasonable.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

As nice and flowery as that sounds, it'd leave room for too many unnecessary ones. See also: faggots who can't seem to figure out what contraception is.

 

[CiG]

What do you mean unnecessary?

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Unnecessary as in abortions that just didn't need to and shouldn't happen. I.e. abortion of special needs children, or aborting a kid because you slept around and didn't use protection of any sort.

 

[CiG]

Well they happen anyway, I'm merely suggesting a limit.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

They wouldn't "happen anyway" to the extent they do with some legalized restrictions. A limit isn't a bad idea, it's just not the solution able to stop as much of it as is needed to be stopped.

 

[CiG]

So you would suggest what? Total ban?

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Um, no. Read my first post on the thread again.