It's great religion is dieing at such a rapid rate. Few more generations.

I don't think it's silly wordplay... it's simply a fact that about half of pregnancies(absent miscarriages) will result in a female being born, who will become an adult female(or woman). This isn't some alien being inside of a woman... it's human life in a stage of development. The right to life, the chance to become a grown female, strikes me as important.

You view moral positions informed by religious beliefs, when they are brought into a political question and you are on the other side of the issue, as illegitimate. Religious people have just as much as a right to vote their conscience as you do. I'll continue to support the state protecting the most vulnerable among us.

People are just replacing religion with destructive populist ideologies. A dignified Christian-influenced conservatism has become a group of cruel, anti-democratic lunatics. And a pragmatic, culturally-moderate liberalism is becoming a culturally-radical progressivism. In a few years you'll be begging the Bible thumpers to come back around.

It is wordplay. You know the people you are talking to dont consider a fetus to be a person with rights. Its just more of what I said earlier. You're hiding from the issue. Its like when religious people say "were allowed to question". Sure, as long as theyre the right questions. The wrong questions get them to ask you to leave. Youre only engaging with the "right questions", not the real questions.

wrong. what i view as illegitimate is not dependent on the circumstance of my personal position on the issue. what i see as illegitimate is lawmakers in a secular state RESTRICTING the rights of people over religious morals / values. that's something else entirely.

in fact, i personally wish there were fewer abortions, but a secular state has no right to restrict a woman's bodily autonomy just because religious zealots want to impose their morals onto others. again, move to a theocracy if you think that's a reasonable approach, there are plenty of people around the globe who share your radical views on women's rights in a society...

again my question, if you think a fetus needs to be protected, would you charge a woman with murder for getting an abortion?

To the non-religious, faith-based takes on social and political matters are in-part infuriating because to the religious your positions are considered to be rooted in the "objective word of infallible God". There's little to no room for growth, capacity for change in positions, or adaptability to new information/data because to do so requires a massive upheavel of previously perceived "objectivity". This contrasts the non-religious stances on these issues which, because of the "subjectivity" that religious folks chastise, is capable of being wrong, better-informed, and ultimately changed.

Yes

IceMage gotta be trolling at this point.

Putting "religious" in front of morals/values doesn't suddenly make them illegitimate. It doesn't matter whether someone believes in protecting the lives of the unborn or implementing a universal healthcare system because they're influenced by their religious beliefs. And many things the state does, which you support, restrict the rights and freedoms of people in some way. That's what the state does... restricts freedoms and imposes costs because of some rationale.

So, while you support restricting freedoms and imposing costs on people in the name of a universal healthcare system, I support restricting freedoms and imposing costs in the name of protecting the lives of the unborn.

I haven't thought deeply about what the woman should be charged with, but the woman and whoever performs the abortion should face criminal punishment, of course.



You mean like the dogmatic belief in a woman's bodily autonomy, no matter what new information we learn about the fetus's ability to feel pain? Let's not pretend the only dogmatic among us are religious people.

I don't know that new information is relevant here. Some either do not think an unborn human has moral value, or it does have moral value, but a woman's bodily autonomy is something the state can't violate, even to protect the unborn. And those on my side believe that the unborn life has moral value and it's acceptable for the state to punish those who intentionally end that life.

interesting. that's of course utterly ridiculous, and incredibly backward, but at least it's logically consistent.

does that mean you oppose any kind of abortion including those for victims of rape and incest? as bad as those are, murder is still the more severe crime, correct?