Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder. But regarding the question, "should abortion be illegal?" there is no such concensus. The other problem with your "argument" is that we do in fact have religious organizations lobbying for abortion restrictions. The RC bishops have been putting statements in church bulletins for parishoners to lobby congress to put greater prohibitions on abortions paid for by private insurance. There clearly is a relgious basis, in the minds of Catholic bishops, for advocating against abortion. So it's no wonder why people would accuse them of trying to force their religious belief about this particular issue on others. It's not a hypothetical -- religious organizations are actively lobbying to get their view of the issue enacted into law. . So of course a lot of people opposed to making abortion illegal have every right to claim that some religious people are trying to force their will on others. That is a totally legitimate claim, just as it is reasonable for people to see the RCC''s active political efforts to thwart same-sex marriage initiatives as trying to force other people to live according to the church's view of marriage as being reserved for only male-female unions.

In this country we value religious freedom. That's why people say "it's not right to force your religion on others." However, I don't think this is what PC people are saying to religious people such as Catholic bishops. Rather, they are saying is that not everyone shares your view of abortion, but we respect your view and defend your right to make your personal reproductive choices according to your view. Difference is that they are not willing to say the same back to the PCers. They do not want women to lead their own reproductive lives according to their own moral, ethical and religious views.

Of course, Bei realizes that murder is illegal in the United States because it violates the civil rights of a person.

Bei also knows (although he stampeth his tiny foot and claimeth that it is all a bunch of hookum) that a fetus, by virtue of its location within another actual person who has rights to be protected, is not and cannot be a person in its own right.  Its civil rights, to the extent it has any, derive from the civil rights of its mother.  Witness laws against 'fetal homicide'.  These only stand because the civil rights of the mother have been violated FIRST.  That is, she has been assaulted, injured, or killed, in the process of 'murdering' her fetus.  Indeed, fetal homicide statutes are designed to protect the mother.

It is essential to note that all legal 'fetal homicide' statutes do not apply to the mother.  That is, she can abort her fetus up to viability, and in certain situations, after viability, with impunity.  

Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder.

Oi vey. This again? Don't you ever get tired of this? I know I do. So you agree that if the majority of people say abortion should be illegal outside of situation X, that it should be illegal outside of situation X, correct? lol, of course you don't. So why mention majorities in the first place?

But, even still, that wasn't the point and your response was mildly ironic. Christians opposing murder because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't constitute making a religious argument, but Christians opposing abortion even when the Bible doesn't say it's wrong constitutes making a religious argument?

Good luck rationalizing that (Which you didn't even try to).

But regarding the question, "should abortion be illegal?" there is no such concensus.

Do you want me to start posting polls again? Majorities of people would restrict abortion to cases of incest, rape, maternal health issues and fetal defects. This is a fact. Every poll taken shows this, and you can't produce a single one which shows something different. Sticking your head in the proverbial sand isn't going to make this fact go away.

The other problem with your "argument" is that we do in fact have religious organizations lobbying for abortion restrictions. The RC bishops have been putting statements in church bulletins for parishoners to lobby congress to put greater prohibitions on abortions paid for by private insurance. There clearly is a relgious basis, in the minds of Catholic bishops, for advocating against abortion. So it's no wonder why people would accuse them of trying to force their religious belief about this particular issue on others. It's not a hypothetical -- religious organizations are actively lobbying to get their view of the issue enacted into law. . So of course a lot of people opposed to making abortion illegal have every right to claim that some religious people are trying to force their will on others. That is a totally legitimate claim, just as it is reasonable for people to see the RCC''s active political efforts to thwart same-sex marriage initiatives as trying to force other people to live according to the church's view of marriage as being reserved for only male-female unions.

Well, if that's the case, then we should do away with HCR, as one of the biggest proponents of HCR has been-- Drumroll please!-- The RCC. Surprising, ain't it? Not, really. So, I suppose we should throw out HCR on the basis that it's being backed by a religious organization and not everyone is religious or wants HCR, right? Right??? RIGHT?!?!?!

lol, of course not.

This goes back to the point above. Since the majority of people want abortion to be restricted in HCR, then it should be restricted. The RCC, therefore, isn't "forcing their religion" on anyone, since this is something the majority of people want and religious ideals don't change that.

...Or do the majority of people who want abortion to be restricted in HCR believe so solely because they're religious?

In this country we value religious freedom. That's why people say "it's not right to force your religion on others." However, I don't think this is what PC people are saying to religious people such as Catholic bishops. Rather, they are saying is that not everyone shares your view of abortion, but we respect your view and defend your right to make your personal reproductive choices according to your view. Difference is that they are not willing to say the same back to the PCers.

They do not want women to lead their own reproductive lives according to their own moral, ethical and religious views.

Yeah, see. This is a classic case of trying to have your cake and it eat too, and is where your argument falls apart-- Something I've had to point out no less than a hundred times. On one hand you state that people should be able to decide things for themselves based on their own "moral, ethical and religious views", while on the other hand you state that they should only be able to do so as long as the majority does not believe an action should be illegal.

If I say, "Rape should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think rape should be illegal. If I say, "Murder should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think murder should be illegal. If I say, "Theft should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think theft should be illegal. On the other hand, if I say, "Abortion-on-demand should be illegal because the majority of people think it should be illegal", you would tell me that it wouldn't matter what the majority of people want and that women should be able to act according to their own "moral, ethical and religious views".

How does that work? You can't have it both ways, as the above is patently indefensible and blatant hypocrisy. I know it, you know it and pretty much anyone who reads the above knows it (Whether they admit to knowing it is another thing entirely). Either you argue based on majorities or you don't. You don't get to pick-and-choose when you want to use the "Well, the majority agree with Proposition X!" argument when it suits you.

...Oh, and to have a little fun, consider the following situation. There's a community of 100 people, 80 of whom think murder should be illegal and 20 of whom believe it should be legal. Let's also assume that, tomorrow, a fire kills 70 of the people who believe that murder should be illegal. Guess what? Now, according to your logic, murder should be legal. Hooray!

Your not caring for the argument of 'location' doesn't make the case less valid, Bei.  A fetus is not a person because if it were granted rights of personhood it would diminish the rights of the woman carrying it BECAUSE of its location (in HER body).

And yes, in the case of fetal homicide, any rights it has derive from its mother's civil rights.  That's just the way it is.  That's why a woman can abort ('murder') a fetus without penalty but if her husband knocks her down the stairs and achieves the same end, it's 'homicide'.  The law is to protect the woman from being knocked down the stairs and having HER rights violated; it does this by extending limited 'rights' to the fetus to deter the crime against HER.

Because women are more likely to be murdered and assaulted during pregnancy than any other time in their lives, not that that matters to you.

And you can claim you are right all you want, but you're not.  Too bad that you don't like the jurisprudence around fetal/maternal rights.  A lot of serious thought went into determining whose rights are in ascendance, and guess what, Bei?  The adult female PERSON's rights are always ascendant.  All of that work was done to protect women from people who want to usurp their rights.  And if you see yourself among those who want to usurp women's rights, well, if the shoe fits.