or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Kill The Infants!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kill The Infants! - Page 3  

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

 

What if your typical pro-lifer were more like the woman who volunteers for the homeless? And not rich people who think they can dictate what everybody else does and do whatever they want. And who think Rick Santorum is a major hypocrite too?

 


I volunteer too. Volunteering doesn't make someone able to dictate mine, or anyone elses, reproductive choices. Nor does it make them any more "morally" sound.

post #42 of 68

I'm responding to the part where you described who you think pro-lifers are - rich hypocrites, basically. And you said that until pro-lifers are NOT rich hypocrites, you will not be engaging in any meaningful discussion with them.

 

So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?

post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire 

 

So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?



If they supported implementing meaningful social programs to deal with the consequences of making abortion illegal, sure. But so far, all I've seen from the pro-life camp is that if you don't want babies don't get preggo.

post #44 of 68

ssm...google the morning center if you want to see what kind of programs are being implemented for women and their babies

post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

ssm...google the morning center if you want to see what kind of programs are being implemented for women and their babies



Thats great. Wheres the massive scale thats needed to combat the horrible poverty that is faced by women all over the country? One clinic is great - but its not going to solve the problem. There needs to be universal health care, it needs to be widely available and easily accessible to everyone.

 

Also, I generally do not like programs thats home page states: "lavish the love of Jesus Christ on women and unborn children who desperately need it"

 

Not all women who get pregnant are religious, and the last thing they need is for religious BS shoved down their throats.

 

AND - its not just maternity care that women need, its childcare, reliable daycare so that they can work to feed that extra mouth. Afordable, GOOD daycare (in my city, which has more than its fair share of poverty, it costs me $1,400/month to have my ds in a good quality child care).

 

The amount of social services needed is not enough - just maternity care isn't going to cut it. Our country is not willing to provide services to people on a large scale. The services that are available are mostly inadequate.

post #46 of 68

shrug.gif Well, maybe someday a meaningful discussion will be possible.

post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

shrug.gif Well, maybe someday a meaningful discussion will be possible.



And maybe someday the pro-life movement will realize its about more than just abortion.

post #48 of 68

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

 

I agree it's about more than abortion.

 

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

 

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.

post #49 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

 

I agree it's about more than abortion.

 

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

 

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.


I haven't seen that. What have you contributed other than to tell me that pro-lifers think Santorum is just as loony as I think he is? I responded to someones post about the morningside christian group that wants to give free maternity care to people - but that doesn't solve the problem.

 

If you agree that its about more than just abortion, then tell me more than that. I haven't decided what everyone thinks - I just know that I am staunchly pro-choice because I believe that women should CHOOSE parenthood. I think it should be a choice. And until there are huge steps taken to support women in parenting, abortion needs to be a choice. It needs to be. There are religious fanatics trying right this very second to make D&C procedures illegal to remove dead fetuses from a woman's body. That is the pro-life movement that is happening right now. Whether most pro-lifers think that way is a different thing entirely, but the people who are actually in power and have political power to make changes are making the wrong ones. And I don't see the pro-life movement trying to stop them.

 

post #50 of 68


I'll discuss with you.  I'm not out to finger point or name call and I think we're on the opposite sides of the spectrum on this
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

 

I agree it's about more than abortion.

 

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

 

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.



I can completely understand why both sides get emotional and throw out irrational thought.

 

I don't care which politician is a hypocrite ( I think they all are).  I do care about what is happening with women's health.  The recent language that has been coming out from some of the more conservative states have me a little worried... OK a lot worried.  I'm trying to wade through it all but it seems that the uterus is a battle zone.  Where the life of the fetus/baby whatever people feel it should be called outweighs the life of the person who is carrying fetus/baby. When so many different stipulations are put into place it becomes a pile of paperwork and finger pointing.  The Moral compass of another should not weigh down the mother. 

 

I would like to point out that I do not side with anyone on this issue in full force.  I can not say that conservatives are hypocrites trying to bring down the women anymore than I can say the liberals are baby killers.  I don't agree with either.  I see the moral dilemma of one group over another.  I get that.  However what needs to be done is not that simple.  A woman should have every right to her body.  Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group.  The reasons for her unwanted pregnancy can be all over the spectrum, lack of education ( whose fault is that?), no access to good health care (fault?), poor family structure (fault?), a medical issue, or simply a poor choice that she cannot see through.  While every potential life could have a blessed outcome, many do not.  My biggest issue is over the ones who do not.  That really is for another conversation.

 

Women's health is under attack again and it's hidden in abortion laws.  In those laws they add little tidbits that make life harder and choices more difficult.  And the loudest proponents of attacking women's health... Are men.

post #51 of 68

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

Quote:
A woman should have every right to her body.  Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group.

How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

 

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

 

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

 

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

 

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?

post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

 

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

We view this so differently.  I'm very grey where you're in black and white.

 

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

If you would prefer those specific words then sure.  Those are your words.  Again, I don't see it as a women gleefully skipping to the clinic and opting for a hanger over a suctioning device.  There are many reasons a woman could want or need to end the possiblity of the fetus/baby. 

 

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

Black and white still.  We both see this so differently and maybe it not worth discussing at all.  I in no way feel I should try to change your mind on how you feel.  Mostly because you live in another country and your votes do not touch my uterus. 

 

This issue is so much more complex then calling a women a murderer.  It really is. 

 

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?

 

Heres the kicker, I don't believe in the death penalty either. 



So if you don't mind and you insist on black and white thinking which is completely your right.

 

Would you tell a mother who has found out her child is dead in utero she should be forced to carry it til it comes out on it's own?  Theres a politician here that feels that way.

 

Should a mother who is waiting on a miscarriage not be allowed a D&C... because it's deemed abortive?

 

Should the morning after pill not be supplied to women? For any reason at all? 

 

Should birth control be kept from women altogether?

 

Should a mother carrying a baby who will not live outside the womb for any mirade of reasons (obviously genetics) be forced to carry her baby those extra few months even though it's futile? 

 

These are the issues we're facing right now.  It's not should abortion be legal or illegal.  It's should women have any choices at all?  Some of them ridiculous and some of them refering to us as cattle. 

 

Maybe I didn't answer the questions you asked to the fullest.  I honestly tried.

post #53 of 68

Since infanticide is not unique to humans, but is practiced by many other mammals when there is too much stress, I wonder how much of the moral outrage over infanticide and abortion comes from a desire to set humans apart from other animals and prove we are better than them.

 


 

post #54 of 68

The problem, and crux of this issue, is the definition of the word Baby. I don't think of a fetus as a baby. It's a fetus, dependent on the woman carrying it. A baby is born, but I don't think of a fetus as a baby until they are born.

post #55 of 68

Male animals quite often fight and kill each other over females, so... ??? 

post #56 of 68

lmakcerka: Why are you unwilling to actually engage with my arguments? I asked you several questions and you've skirted nearly all of them; I'm not sure why, but I can't conduct a discussion without actual engagement; I'm not going to keep sending arguments off into the void. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine,

post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

 

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

 

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

 

A woman should be able to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It used to be illegal - one reason it was legalized (in the US, I have no idea what the laws of your country are though since I haven't looked it up) is that women were dying of back alley abortions. It became a public health issue as the infections they were getting from illegal procedures was killing them. Allowing women to get abortions does not take us into complete anarchy allowing people to run around committing mass murders and gang rapes. It's a specific procedure that is made by a pregnant woman because she does not want to continue the pregnancy. The reasons for that are infinite, and depend on a persons personal circumstances. I don't know all the reasons, I don't need to - I believe in a woman's autonomy over her own body, and I believe that a woman's life (a woman who may be married with kids, a single mother who cannot afford another child, a woman who is living in poverty, a woman who is in an abusive relationship and fears telling her husband/boyfriend/partner, etc etc etc) should take precedence over that of a fetus. Allowing abortions - which can only be performed on consenting women by doctors when the woman is pregnant - does not equate to allowing murder en mass, nor does it equate to allowing people to do whatever they want whenever they want to the detriment of society.

 

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ?

 

The difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby has been born and is living independent of the mother. A fetus is not living independent, and is inside the mother. That is the difference. I do not believe in infanticide - I think that infanticide and abortion are completely different.

 

A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm?

 

Using unrealistic scenarios to make your point won't help you either. If a baby (who has been born) is crying and crying and crying and there isn't anyone for 1,000 miles to help you - put the baby down and walk away for 20 minutes or a half hour. Seriously. The baby will live. I'm not a fan of CIO, but a mother who has no help and needs a half hour to chill, won't kill her baby and also won't harm them for life. When you are parenting a baby who has been born, you can get some time away in almost all situations to relax and calm down. Killing the baby isn't necessary. When you are a cocaine addict and you are pregnant, and not able to clean up enough to have a healthy baby, who am I to tell you that you have to carry that fetus to term? It's becoming harder and harder to get treatment for addictions when you are pregnant (at least here int he US) because it is being criminalized to take illegal drugs when pregnant. This deters women from seeking medical care and help detoxing - which adds more public health issues and makes it harder for women to have a health pregnancy.

 

If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

 

Well, in all honesty, we cannot force people to care for babies or invalids. That's why CPS exists in our world, and why people call them when they notice a baby failing to thrive. Or when they see a child being beaten, or otherwise think a family is at risk. We don't have the right to force a mother to feed her children, but we do have the ability to remove those children from her care if need be (well, I don't, but CPS and the courts do have that ability)

 

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?



Also, I have a big problem with the slippery slope of making abortions illegal. Will women be questioned when they have a miscarriage? What if a fetus dies in the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Will they be investigated for murder? I've been fortunate and never suffered a pregnancy loss - but I can only imagine how devastating it would be. To add being investigated for murder on top of that is just too much.

 

Will D&C's be disallowed for missed miscarriages? They are frequently used for that.

 

I also wonder how much of your reasoning is based on religious beliefs. I don't know about your home country, but my country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and separation of church and state. It's written into our Declaration of Independence, and our government is not allowed to act based on religious teachings, leanings or beliefs. Crazy lunatic man Rick Santorum (who would never get elected) has outright stated that he disagrees with separation of church and state - which is a big problem because our nation was founded with that as a major principle.

post #58 of 68

I do see this argument as simply a variation/continuation of the abortion debate. The primary debate about abortion is simply "when does a fetus/child become a person" or "when does a fetus/child reach a developmental stage to have value".

 

I'm pro-life. I honestly do not believe that life begins at conception. I do, however, believe that life does begin at some point before birth. I do not know when that point is in the pregnancy. I suspect it is fairly early. I would say that life begins when neurons start firing but I don't know when that happens. Since I cannot know I choose to consider a fetus as alive from conception onward to avoid the chance of terminating the life of a separate and conscious individual.

 

Right now my belief system is not the most prevalent belief in our country and our laws reflect this by making abortion legal. The belief that life does begin before birth is also a very common belief. The authors of the article quoted have yet another belief as to when life starts. Happily this is not a popular opinion about when life happens.

 

No matter what milestones you choose to use to quantify when life begins there is going to be differences of opinion. Take my opinion that life begins with neural development. While I would argue that the ability to think makes a person and gives that person value and makes that person someone who should have the legal right to life, I could see another making the argument that life doesn’t begin until the brain is mature at over the age of 21 and therefore they don’t have the right to protection of life.

 

While most of us wouldn’t agree that a person should be allowed to be killed legally up until age 21 due to their incomplete brain development we do use that brain development to deny them rights even past the age of legal adulthood. Isn’t the fact that brains are still developing in young adults one of the primary reasons that the drinking age in our country is 21 despite legal adulthood beginning at 18 in most states? Even this decision is one that many individual have different opinions on.

 

So really the decisions about when life begins are somewhat arbitrary and there are always going to lots of opinions about how to quantify life and it's value and what rights that person should or should not have.

post #59 of 68

It's not that I'm not answering your questions.  You're to quick to be negative toward the person on the other end.  I do not debate but would rather discuss.  When you make inflammatory statements such as

 

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
 

You lose me.

 

In no way have I said, "You want women to suffer, you want all babies to live no matter the consequence or death of the mother".    Look I would love to discuss this with you but you are seriously black and white and you want an argument.  You won't get one from me.  For one I really like you, also I don't argue things such as this but rather try to understand them.  To me there are so many variables.  I understand your thinking, I once thought that way.  I have changed my mind through experience and life.  My own losses and my own fears.  With my current medical situation getting pregnant might mean I would have to choose a life.  I would choose mine.  I have two living daughters and three dead ones.  I'm going to say the living ones need me more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

lmakcerka: Why are you unwilling to actually engage with my arguments? I asked you several questions and you've skirted nearly all of them; I'm not sure why, but I can't conduct a discussion without actual engagement; I'm not going to keep sending arguments off into the void. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine,



 

post #60 of 68

Super-Single-Mama: I've replied to some of your post already via PM. I'll repeat it here for the sake of completeness, but after that I'd rather our discussion was kept to one place or the other: seems silly to repeat arguments.

 

Quote:
Allowing women to get abortions does not take us into complete anarchy allowing people to run around committing mass murders and gang rapes.

I didn't say it did; I said that the statement "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" need to be better phrased, because as it stands, it would allow for mass murder and gang rape. If what you believe is simply "a woman should have the right to kill her fetus", then say that; don't make noble-sounding catch-phrases that don't hold up to scrutiny. NOBODY believes "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" as a standalone principle. It sounds good, but it makes no sense.

 

 

Quote:
The difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby has been born and is living independent of the mother. A fetus is not living independent, and is inside the mother. That is the difference. I do not believe in infanticide - I think that infanticide and abortion are completely different.

A baby is only capable of living independently of its mother if a mother-substitute is available. If not, she is forced to use her body (surrendering her bodily autonomy) in order to prevent it dying, just as with pregnancy (and in many cases, with far more mental and physical toll - some women sail through pregnancy and birth, but find breastfeeding, night wakings etc absolutely hellish).

 

 

Quote:
sing unrealistic scenarios to make your point won't help you either. If a baby (who has been born) is crying and crying and crying and there isn't anyone for 1,000 miles to help you - put the baby down and walk away for 20 minutes or a half hour. Seriously. The baby will live. I'm not a fan of CIO, but a mother who has no help and needs a half hour to chill, won't kill her baby and also won't harm them for life. When you are parenting a baby who has been born, you can get some time away in almost all situations to relax and calm down. Killing the baby isn't necessary. When you are a cocaine addict and you are pregnant, and not able to clean up enough to have a healthy baby, who am I to tell you that you have to carry that fetus to term? It's becoming harder and harder to get treatment for addictions when you are pregnant (at least here int he US) because it is being criminalized to take illegal drugs when pregnant. This deters women from seeking medical care and help detoxing - which adds more public health issues and makes it harder for women to have a health pregnancy.

 

20 minutes or half an hour... after which she has to again surrender her bodily autonomy to return to care for the infant, or it WILL DIE. It's true that in most situations, parents of newborns can theoretically get support or give the baby up for adoption (although how many of those parents realistically, actually have and are aware of access for those services is another question): but doesn't that reduce the baby's right to life to convenience? A baby can live only insofar as its mother doesn't have to surrender her bodily autonomy to care for it? What if she doesn't want to use her own, autonomous body to pick up the phone and dial an adoption agency? How absolute is her bodily autonomy?

 

Quote:
Well, in all honesty, we cannot force people to care for babies or invalids. That's why CPS exists in our world, and why people call them when they notice a baby failing to thrive. Or when they see a child being beaten, or otherwise think a family is at risk. We don't have the right to force a mother to feed her children, but we do have the ability to remove those children from her care if need be (well, I don't, but CPS and the courts do have that ability)

So you don't think parents who neglect or starve their children should be punished, on the grounds that feeding/clothing them or treating their illnesses would have interfered with their [the parents'] bodily autonomy? Really? What about forcing dads to pay child support? That interferes with how they use their bodies. What I'm looking for here is a qualitative distinction between "using your body" in a reproductive sense, and "using your body" in any other sense. No-one has yet given me one.

 

Quote:
Also, I have a big problem with the slippery slope of making abortions illegal. Will women be questioned when they have a miscarriage? What if a fetus dies in the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Will they be investigated for murder? I've been fortunate and never suffered a pregnancy loss - but I can only imagine how devastating it would be. To add being investigated for murder on top of that is just too much.

Not necessarily. Murder's illegal, and most deaths don't come with a criminal investigation, unless there is reason to believe there was foul play.

 

Quote:
Will D&C's be disallowed for missed miscarriages? They are frequently used for that.

I don't see why they shouldn't be, as that's not a pro-life issue. I can't answer for what laws your crazy American system will come up with, but it is irrelevant to the theory and philosophy of the pro-life movement.

 

Quote:
I also wonder how much of your reasoning is based on religious beliefs. I don't know about your home country, but my country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and separation of church and state. It's written into our Declaration of Independence, and our government is not allowed to act based on religious teachings, leanings or beliefs. Crazy lunatic man Rick Santorum (who would never get elected) has outright stated that he disagrees with separation of church and state - which is a big problem because our nation was founded with that as a major principle.

[Copying and pasting]

 

1. NZ has freedom of religion and separation of church and state. That means religious people have the freedom to vote against laws they think are immoral. Separation of church and state does NOT mean, in NZ, the US or anywhere else, that religious people must put their beliefs aside and pretend they are secular humanists/atheists/whatever when they vote.

 

2. My beliefs that rape, murder and theft are wrong are also founded on my religious beliefs - should I not vote to oppose those things? Be consistent. If you don't like religious people voting according to their beliefs only when you disagree with those beliefs, it's dishonest to pretend this is about separation of church and state.

 

3. Secular beliefs are no more inherently worthy of being enshrined in law than religious ones. You believe a fetus has no rights - whether you believe that because you believe God told you, your spirit grandmother told you or your ex-boyfriend or philosophy professor told you is irrelevant. Your beliefs are not more provable or epistemically superior simply because they are not religious. Why should unborn babies have to pay the price for your personal beliefs?

 

 

Quote:
When you make inflammatory statements [snip] You lose me.

How is it inflammatory? I'm asking you to define your beliefs precisely, because no discussion can be fruitful without precise definitions. I never claimed you were OK with rape/murder/genocide; in fact, I specifically stated that I believed you weren't. Obviously you're under no obligation to discuss this with me, but if you do I need you to respond to what I say, or what's the point?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Kill The Infants!