5 ms·
> It's important to note that whether this is sinful or not completely irrelevant to whether it should be illegal. The fact that so many Christians don't see th
by highmastdon 4y ago
> It's important to note that whether this is sinful or not completely irrelevant to whether it should be illegal. The fact that so many Christians don't see this obvious fact is frankly disturbing - as is the fact that organizations like the Catholic Church are engaged in trying to push such theocratic ideas.
I agree it has nothing to do with whether it's sinful or not. Basic human rights stand for religious as well as non-religious people. Therefore anyone can push human rights in the way they want, whether they're the Catholic Church or not.
> There are many huge sins that are perfectly legal. For example, eating pork, killing cows, and working on the Sabbath are much worse sins according to their respective religions, and yet they are perfectly legal activities.
Again, the things that are illegal, do not undermine the basic human rights. So, in modern society, eating pork shouldn't lead to death (which doesn't, not even in religious terms) but same goes for working on sabbath. ONLY if you subject yourself to it, and only then, you, personally, waive the human right to live.
> For legal matters, the only thing that matters is balancing the rights of one individual with the rights of everyone else, and with the good of society of large. From all of these points of view, allowing access to early term abortion is a clear net win, even if it infringes on the rights of a kinda sorta potential person (the fetus). As the fetus gets closer to being an actual person, the equation changes.
I think we're on a very bad slope here. The question of whether something is good for society at large is the one the Nazi's followed as well. By that, we should think of the rights of every single individual. Therefore, killing a human is not allowed, unless it's for the inevitable life of another human, there should not be a question what the answer is. Neither as a fetus, nor as an "actual person"
Identity politics and their resulting policies should be avoided at all costs. We should focus on the individual and their rights, and the group, or society if you
will, will benefit.
- tsimionescu 4y ago> I think we're on a very bad slope here. The question of whether something is good for society at large is the one the Nazi's followed as well. By that, we should think of the rights of every single individual. Therefore, killing a human is not allowed, unless it's for the inevitable life of another human, there should not be a question what the answer is. Neither as a fetus, nor as an "actual person" There is virtually no legal decision that does not balance the rights of the individual with those of society. Most clearly, when a law punishes an individual, especially with jail time, that is a way of putting the rights of society before the rights of that individual. Even more importantly, the question of abortion clearly puts the right of a woman to have the freedom to use her body in conflict with the right of the being growing inside her uterus. There is no way to legislate this without curtailing the rights of one of these beings (even if we don't consider the fetus as a person, non-human beings still have rights under the law of most countries).