4 ms·

For most who hold it, this position is backed by the person's religious beliefs. It is intolerant because the implementation of their position is, in effect, fo

For most who hold it, this position is backed by the person's religious beliefs. It is intolerant because the implementation of their position is, in effect, forcing others to abide by their religious beliefs. In addition to that, the implementations tend to be misogynistic, racist, and/or classist.

hnthrowaway6543 3y ago
> For most who hold it, this position is backed by the person's religious beliefs. It is intolerant because the implementation of their position is, in effect, forcing others to abide by their religious beliefs. Is that not the case for many laws and cultural norms? Why is public nudity, or even public sex, illegal (in most/many places) if not religious beliefs? Do you think people should be allowed to have sex in public? If not, are you not being intolerant and forcing your religious and cultural beliefs upon others?
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  This ground has been tread many times already, but saying abortion should be illegal is closer to saying people must have sex in public. In both cases you're compelling a person to use (and abuse) their body a certain way (for ~9 months in the case of a pregnancy). But even setting that aside, most anti-abortion advocates "give the game away" by also advocating against contraception. Their primary concern is not "murder", it's sex.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  Many of our laws were at least initially produced in a religious or other framework that implies universal morality. I am in favor of reviewing and reconsidering laws where we can't seem to find a non-religious justification. For the public sex example you raise, we have plenty of evidence and experience that shows the further you get away from adults doing consensual sexual things either alone or around other consenting adults, the more likely it is that someone may be psychologically harmed. Getting the consent of everyone in a public setting is pretty hard. Aside from religious folk, most people don't have a problem with strip clubs, sex clubs, sex parties, nude beaches, etc where a bunch of consenting adults are naked and/or behaving sexually around other consenting adults. So no, I don't think people should be allowed to have sex in public, and it is not based in religious or cultural belief. It's based on evidence that non-consensual sexual situations (including observing someone else's sexual behavior) causes harm, and that it violates others' right to not consent to the sexual situation.
pton_xd 3y ago
It's obvious to me how some people would earnestly consider killing an unborn child to be equivalent to murder. How is that belief "intolerant," except that you strongly disagree with it? Maybe you highly value the ability to kill unborn children, and they highly value the ability to stop that. It's just a difference in values, no one is right or wrong. The whole point of speech is to discuss these competing values!
- Thiez 3y ago
  If the belief is rooted in religious dogma, as it usually is, there can be no productive discussion. Most arguments will boil down to 'because my book says so'.
Georgelemental 3y ago
I am not religious, and am pro-life. I know a lot of other pro-life folks who are deeply religious. All of us share the same basic motivation: human life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection. For my religious friends, their faith is just one additional reason to believe in the value of human life.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  I assume you and your friends also advocate against the death penalty, for sex education and access to contraceptives, and for a robust social safety net?
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    > against the death penalty Some are against it in all cases, others argue that violating other people's right to life means you forfeit your own. (Personally I'm unsure) > Sex education and access to contracepion Pretty low-salience issue for most of them. Many believe premarital sex is wrong, no strong opinions beyond that. I've never known any of them to argue against condoms, for example. > robust social safety net They tend to be skeptical of massive government welfare programs, but they are not Ayn Randists to any extent. All recognize that a culture of life needs to support mothers and their children at every step; many volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers to help with that.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I think this is a filter bubble situation, because policymakers in certain states don't seem to be pro-life so much as anti-women's rights. And if policymakers are like that, a good portion of the populace either agrees or doesn't care. Perhaps they have different conditions for abortion but don't care to object. It's wrong to malign all Christians in the US as such, but some people are using religion as a facade. I think the facade is quite effective, considering the abysmal level of critical thinking in the US.
      - Georgelemental 3y ago

hnthrowaway6543 3y ago

> For most who hold it, this position is backed by the person's religious beliefs. It is intolerant because the implementation of their position is, in effect, forcing others to abide by their religious beliefs. Is that not the case for many laws and cultural norms? Why is public nudity, or even public sex, illegal (in most/many places) if not religious beliefs? Do you think people should be allowed to have sex in public? If not, are you not being intolerant and forcing your religious and cultural beliefs upon others?

AlexandrB 3y ago
This ground has been tread many times already, but saying abortion should be illegal is closer to saying people must have sex in public. In both cases you're compelling a person to use (and abuse) their body a certain way (for ~9 months in the case of a pregnancy). But even setting that aside, most anti-abortion advocates "give the game away" by also advocating against contraception. Their primary concern is not "murder", it's sex.
sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
Many of our laws were at least initially produced in a religious or other framework that implies universal morality. I am in favor of reviewing and reconsidering laws where we can't seem to find a non-religious justification. For the public sex example you raise, we have plenty of evidence and experience that shows the further you get away from adults doing consensual sexual things either alone or around other consenting adults, the more likely it is that someone may be psychologically harmed. Getting the consent of everyone in a public setting is pretty hard. Aside from religious folk, most people don't have a problem with strip clubs, sex clubs, sex parties, nude beaches, etc where a bunch of consenting adults are naked and/or behaving sexually around other consenting adults. So no, I don't think people should be allowed to have sex in public, and it is not based in religious or cultural belief. It's based on evidence that non-consensual sexual situations (including observing someone else's sexual behavior) causes harm, and that it violates others' right to not consent to the sexual situation.

pton_xd 3y ago

It's obvious to me how some people would earnestly consider killing an unborn child to be equivalent to murder. How is that belief "intolerant," except that you strongly disagree with it? Maybe you highly value the ability to kill unborn children, and they highly value the ability to stop that. It's just a difference in values, no one is right or wrong. The whole point of speech is to discuss these competing values!

Thiez 3y ago
If the belief is rooted in religious dogma, as it usually is, there can be no productive discussion. Most arguments will boil down to 'because my book says so'.

Georgelemental 3y ago

I am not religious, and am pro-life. I know a lot of other pro-life folks who are deeply religious. All of us share the same basic motivation: human life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection. For my religious friends, their faith is just one additional reason to believe in the value of human life.

AlexandrB 3y ago
I assume you and your friends also advocate against the death penalty, for sex education and access to contraceptives, and for a robust social safety net?
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > against the death penalty Some are against it in all cases, others argue that violating other people's right to life means you forfeit your own. (Personally I'm unsure) > Sex education and access to contracepion Pretty low-salience issue for most of them. Many believe premarital sex is wrong, no strong opinions beyond that. I've never known any of them to argue against condoms, for example. > robust social safety net They tend to be skeptical of massive government welfare programs, but they are not Ayn Randists to any extent. All recognize that a culture of life needs to support mothers and their children at every step; many volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers to help with that.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I think this is a filter bubble situation, because policymakers in certain states don't seem to be pro-life so much as anti-women's rights. And if policymakers are like that, a good portion of the populace either agrees or doesn't care. Perhaps they have different conditions for abortion but don't care to object. It's wrong to malign all Christians in the US as such, but some people are using religion as a facade. I think the facade is quite effective, considering the abysmal level of critical thinking in the US.
    - Georgelemental 3y ago