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,

> 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.

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.