@Vorian_Atreides Thanks for saying my tone is acceptable. I realize that religion can be touchy. And at time, I may rag on religion in general (usually when it’s in government), or on specific hypocrites. But when I ask questions such as the above, I am earnest.
1 Like
It’s strange how so many Republicans are now back peddling after the Alabama Supreme Court Ruling. You’d think they’d be all over that with support.
It’s almost like their position was simply to pander to a certain part of their base that they were never hoping to actually satisfy. Weird.
2 Likes
the Rep are filled with full crazy’s and partial crazy’s
i don’t think it was pandering, he is a full crazy and the partial crazy’s realize that position will lose votes
1 Like
Yeah I get that he’s a true believer. The fact that he’s a Judge on a State’s Supreme Court is what’s scary.
4 Likes
the fact that he feels its proper to reference the bible in his decision, scares me
6 Likes
I don’t think this is a case of theocracy, although i understand there are a sizable number of americans who do want that (so called christian nationalists) who also support ending abortion rights.
related, i don’t think it is realistic to keep religion absolutely out of politics. for that matter, there is no genuinely “neutral” ground anyway. we all take positions based on some set of assumed values.
the problem, in my opinion, is the certainty. and it’s the willingness to ignore obvious human suffering in service of that certainty.
Dude quoted the bible to justify the decision.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
4 Likes
i suspect that one alabama supreme court justice is a christian nationalist. so i agree with you on that guy.
i meant the more general position against abortion rights. or even the more general position for considering a fetus a person.
1 Like
So does this mean that now you can claim a dependent on your AL taxes for each miscarriage you’ve had in a year? Multiple years if your pregnancy spans the year-end.
2 Likes
I remember georgia debated a fetal personhood law a number of years ago and even many conservative lawyers were against it (as opposed to abortion specifically being outlawed) because of all the far reaching implications.
One thing: if an abortion is now fully murder (as opposed to an illegal procedure) , then how can it be ok to leave the state to get it done? In other words, will this cut off abortion access even to those women wealthy enough to leave the state to get it done elsewhere ?
I recall reading that in several Texas counties, it is now supposedly illegal to transit the county for the purposes of obtaining an abortion. This is on top of SB 8, the law (currently facing legal challenges) that authorizes private individuals/groups to sue those who assist women in traveling to obtain an abortion.
I believe you can be against abortion on areligious moral grounds.
I absolutely do not believe that banning abortion on Biblical grounds is anything but theocracy.
3 Likes
Going back in the thread, because Raistlin’s comment on theocracy tickled something in my mind…
While the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion (the one that invokes Jeremiah) does read like a conservative Protestant tract, it is worth noting that he does so while commenting on this provision of the state contitution (approved by referendum):
He invokes religion for the purpose of discussing the meaning of the phrase “sanctity of unborn life”.
I wonder if it’s possible to define that phrase in such a way that doesn’t require delving into theocracy.
Within libertarian circles, you will find people who state their disagreement with abortion on the grounds that it violates the “non-aggression principle”, the idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with your person or property except initiate “aggression”. It’s a fundamental assumption in how a libertarian utopia would be able to function…and humans’ apparent inability to abide by it is one of the reasons that libertarianism doesn’t translate well into the real world.
An abortion potentially violates the NAP by virtue of it being the initiation of aggression against the unborn child. However, abortions to protect the life/health of the mother can be viewed as kosher because the NAP doesn’t preclude self-defense, and abortions of non-viable fetuses are justifiable under this line of thought because they can be considered an act of mercy rather than aggression.
2 Likes
He says that the word “inviolable” is used for similar ideas when people want to avoid the implication of God in “sanctity”. Then he says that the decision to use “sanctity” was deliberate as a way of invoking God given.
1 Like
My guess is there was significant emotional damage. It takes a huge amount of time and effort to harvest viable eggs, and only about half of them successfully fertilize into viable zygotes. If you had put months into creating something, and some ozo accidentally destroyed it, I’m certain you would be upset.
4 Likes
The Jewish view of abortion is complicated, and of course, different Jews have different opinions. But the theories underlying the various opinions are:
-
Saving a life trumps pretty much everything else.
-
The fetus isn’t a human being until it draws its first breath. “Breath” and “soul” are the same word in Hebrew, and God ensouled humans by breathing into them.
-
You are allowed to kill a “pursuer”, something that is attacking you and won’t let you go away. The fetus has the legal status of a pursuer, with respect to the mother.
-
You don’t have the right to abuse your body. Your body was given to you by God, is the image of God, and must be treated with respect. There are Orthodox Jews who don’t smoke for this reason. (Others smoke, that’s not a universally held opinion.) Judaism generally prohibits tattoos for this reason.
-
There is a commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Intentionally terminating a pregnancy violates that.
So even the most Orthodox of Jews believe that there is a duty to abort a fetus that puts the mother’s life or health in serious risk. And because the fetus isn’t yet a person, it’s generally accepted to abort a fetus that’s severely defective, and will die shortly after birth, like one with Tay Sachs disease, or other major birth defects.
After that, it gets more contentious. Orthodox Jews generally frown on elective abortion, not because it’s murder (it’s clearly not, in Jewish law) but because it’s seen as abusing your body and disrupting its natural reproductive function. But, if for example, this pregnancy has a problem that might prevent you from having children later (even if it’s a social or financial problem) many religious Jews would consider it unfortunate, but acceptable, to abort.
Reform Judaism whole heartedly supports reproductive rights, seeing that as fulfillment of a woman’s responsibility to care for her body and reflect its godly nature. We are each tasked with helping the work of creation, to make the world a better place, and that includes creating lives and families that nurture us as well as others.
2 Likes
The actual ruling is Alabama is apparently quite narrow, and only extends the status of “child”, not of “person” to frozen zygotes. And it only applies to civil law, not to criminal law. The biblical stuff wasn’t in the main opinion, it was in a concurring opinion.
That being said, half the IVF clinics in the state have already “paused” operations. Because this narrow ruling is now a precedent for broader ruling. Because it’s clear that at least part of the court wanted to go a lot further. And because no one wants to be on the hook for hundreds of murders. Discarding low quality zygotes is a normal part of IVF, and excess viable zygotes are routinely discarded after the parents have enough kids, or give up, or die, or get divorced.
1 Like
I’m not sure how to unambiguously distinguish between religious and areligious grounds.
Is it areligious to base your beliefs on the idea that through pure reason any person can find moral good? This is grounded in a combination of christianity and ancient greek philosophy, with ancient greek philosophy itself a kind of religion.
and pure reason can lead to tyranny as much as anything else, as shown by the french revolution or communism.
if a priest votes based on his faith, i don’t think that’s a problem as long as his vote doesn’t count for more because he is a priest.
in other words, as a matter of course, authority should come from the constitution, not the bible. but deciding what to do with that authority will involve religious thinking of some kind.
additionally, there must be some authority above the constitution. if a constitutional amendment is passed to commit mass murder, our commitment against mass murder must come first. that commitment must also come before a commitment to democracy. what is above all of this? if not religion then something like it.
At least the shield laws in several states are helping to make the abortion come to the individual (until this avenue is somehow shut down). Gifted article below.
By emotional damages, I meant “Intentional infliction of emotional distress” resulting in additional monetary damages.
Similar to how when your dog is killed, you’re owed the value of a dog, not the value of a deceased friend.