Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

To this part of my post:

The degree to which restrictions are placed on free enterprise is part of the political argument in any given country; an acceptable balance will arise via the ballot box.

Seth wrote:

That is a fallacious appeal to common practice, not an argument supporting any sort of restrictions. You need to explain why such restrictions are morally justifiable in the first place instead of saying, in effect, "well, that's just the way it is."

You have missed my point entirely. Your version of what restrictions are permissible or reasonable is not holy writ, neither is mine. Presumably, you would argue for less government restrictions than me. Fine, in any particular nation or electorate, you put your argument out there into the political marketplace, I will put mine, and we'll see what the voting public makes of it. Each country will find a balance that works for it.

Again, an appeal to common practice. That this may be the case says nothing about either the justice or morality of those decisions. More to the actual point, the notion that "the voting public" and it's decisions are somehow axiomatically the correct "balance that works for it" is specious. The "balance" that worked for Hitlerian Germany didn't work very well for the Jews of Germany or pretty much anyone else, including Hitler.

The discussion here with respect to abortion has to do with the fundamental morality of abortion, not democratic determinism.

[JimC]

People can make up their own mind about whether they want a particular set of policies, whether political, social or economic. They have no need to stick to your version of what is morality. If the majority decision goes against you, then suck it up, princess...

[pErvinalia]

Yep. There's no such thing as objective absolute morality. There is only what can reasonably be defended (and enforced).

[Brian Peacock]

And all the time Seth keeps this discussion, like so many others, fixed on political theory he's basically avoiding having to address the issue, of the Christians attitude to the morality of abortions and its failure, as demonstrated by the likes of Mr Dear who used his religious beliefs to justify terrorism and murder -- (in the voice of John Wayne) "For surely it was the will of God." -- and the Protestant and Catholic legislators of Northern Ireland who threaten doctors with prosecution and even forbid abortion for rape victims and clinically dead foetuses.

Well, Christians are perfectly entitled to draw moral judgments about abortion based on their religious beliefs as an essential aspect of their right to the free exercise of their religion and their right to speak and express themselves freely in the public square. Moreover, Christians are perfectly entitled to allow their religious beliefs about abortion to inform their political decisions, their legislative advocacy, and their support for laws which comport with their religious beliefs. That's democracy in case you've forgotten.

And you are likewise perfectly entitled to do the same according to your religious beliefs. That you don't like their agenda is balanced by the fact that they don't like yours, and may the best man win.

That you think their beliefs and their personal and political expression of those beliefs as citizens are "failure" is your opinion, to which you are of course entitled. And theirs is theirs, to which they are entitled. But that you believe it to be so does not make it so, no matter how eruditely you may express your opinion.

I find it interesting that you tout the benefits of democratic determinism when it suits you and you revile it when it does not.

If the people of Ireland want laws prohibiting abortion, well, according to democratic socialism they are perfectly entitled to have it just exactly that way, because under all socialist systems, in the end, the rights of the individual are always subservient to the needs and desires of the majority.

In the United States however, we have an individualist construct called "The Constitution" which guarantees the absolute supremacy of certain individual rights over the will of the majority, which is a deliberate check and balance on the tendency of democracy to run amok and become majoritarian totalitarian tyranny.

The problem is of course that the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone, whether they're of their religious persuasion or not. You don't really get secularism do you?

[Svartalf]

Seth wrote:

...Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else...

So, I guess we'll see muslims putting up sections of the Koran all over American courthouses pretty soon?

If they insist on letting the chretins put up the 10 commandments, yes they should

[Seth]

People can make up their own mind about whether they want a particular set of policies, whether political, social or economic. They have no need to stick to your version of what is morality. If the majority decision goes against you, then suck it up, princess...

Fallacious appeal to common practice stated to evade the obvious fact that you're wrong and I'm right.

[Seth]

And all the time Seth keeps this discussion, like so many others, fixed on political theory he's basically avoiding having to address the issue, of the Christians attitude to the morality of abortions and its failure, as demonstrated by the likes of Mr Dear who used his religious beliefs to justify terrorism and murder -- (in the voice of John Wayne) "For surely it was the will of God." -- and the Protestant and Catholic legislators of Northern Ireland who threaten doctors with prosecution and even forbid abortion for rape victims and clinically dead foetuses.

Well, Christians are perfectly entitled to draw moral judgments about abortion based on their religious beliefs as an essential aspect of their right to the free exercise of their religion and their right to speak and express themselves freely in the public square. Moreover, Christians are perfectly entitled to allow their religious beliefs about abortion to inform their political decisions, their legislative advocacy, and their support for laws which comport with their religious beliefs. That's democracy in case you've forgotten.

And you are likewise perfectly entitled to do the same according to your religious beliefs. That you don't like their agenda is balanced by the fact that they don't like yours, and may the best man win.

That you think their beliefs and their personal and political expression of those beliefs as citizens are "failure" is your opinion, to which you are of course entitled. And theirs is theirs, to which they are entitled. But that you believe it to be so does not make it so, no matter how eruditely you may express your opinion.

I find it interesting that you tout the benefits of democratic determinism when it suits you and you revile it when it does not.

If the people of Ireland want laws prohibiting abortion, well, according to democratic socialism they are perfectly entitled to have it just exactly that way, because under all socialist systems, in the end, the rights of the individual are always subservient to the needs and desires of the majority.

In the United States however, we have an individualist construct called "The Constitution" which guarantees the absolute supremacy of certain individual rights over the will of the majority, which is a deliberate check and balance on the tendency of democracy to run amok and become majoritarian totalitarian tyranny.

The problem is of course that the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone, whether they're of their religious persuasion or not. You don't really get secularism do you?

Well, the point is that "secularism" is not the mandate of the Constitution, nor is it the mandate of the UK, Australia or New Zealand, or a great many other countries.

You see, secularism is not common ground and is not the default condition that society is obliged to honor.

This is particularly true in the United States, where "secularism" is strictly limited in its authority to interfere with non-secular activities, motives and political agendas.

The only things that are required to remain "secular" in the US are government agencies and agents. That being said, it's a bit more complex than that because not only must government remain "secular" it its operations, it must also remain religiously neutral in such operations. What this means in practice, and according to Supreme Court ruling, is that the operations of government, where they intersect with religion in any way, are not permitted to either advance or inhibit the free exercise of religion by members of the public. Moreover, as I have said, government also has an affirmative constitutional duty to physically and administratively protect the free exercise of religion by all persons. This is why the fire-bombing of black churches in the south are matters of federal interest that trigger the FBi's authority to investigate what would otherwise be merely a state arson investigation.

The right of minority parishioners to freely exercise their religious rights free of threats and intimidation by bigots and racists in hoods and robes is a federally-protected constitutional right, and where such threats and intimidation are occurring and can be rationally tied to deliberate attempts to interfere with the civil rights of blacks, it becomes a matter of federal jurisdiction and the federal government is obliged to take action to protect those religious rights.

The same would be true if "Christian terrorists" were bombing Freedom From Religion Foundation buildings to intimidate Atheists.

As to "the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone," this is to some extent absolutely true because it is a universal fact that all laws, everywhere, are nothing more than the codification of the ethical and moral beliefs and practices of the culture in which they have evolved. And because quite literally every culture on earth, including Cuba and Communist China have as a foundation of their laws ethical and moral concepts and practices that flow largely very directly from the religious beliefs of the culture of the community, it is therefore true that "the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone."

So what? As a member of a democratic socialist society you necessarily submit to the ethical and moral decisions of the majority, and as it happens the majority of people worldwide hold religious beliefs and base their ethical and moral structure on those beliefs, so you and your quest for universal secularism are just totally screwed...and always have been.

The best an Atheist can hope for is a societal framework that balances the need for secular government with the right of the people to have their religion inform their decisions and influence their government policies. In the US this is called "The Constitution," and it provides just such a balance.

As I said, secularism is not common ground to which everyone, or indeed anyone, is obliged to tread. In a civilized and diverse society however secularism is something that government and its agents is obliged to tread in it's relations with the people of the society that it serves.

And this is why we have the "Lemon Test" as a guide for government in balancing the inherent right of the people to have their religious moral beliefs inform their laws and social structures and the right of everyone to a government that does not rule or regulate based solely upon some particular religious doctrine...as is the case with Islam and Sharia law.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else...

So, I guess we'll see muslims putting up sections of the Koran all over American courthouses pretty soon?

If they insist on letting the chretins put up the 10 commandments, yes they should

Exactly. If that is the case, then the government authorities who manage such public buildings are indeed obliged to permit any and every other religion to do the same because government can neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion nor can it discriminate in favor of, or against any particular religion.

One of the problems with the constant assault on Christmas nativity scenes on public ground is that the argument is made that government is "favoring" the Christian religion by permitting such displays to the detriment of other religions. The fact however is that in most cases the government authorities who have jurisdiction over public free speech and religious expression on public property are never approached by anyone other than Christians for permission to erect a Christmas-related display.

Even the smallest hamlet with it's traditional Christmas nativity display knows full well that it cannot lawfully discriminate if, for example, a Jewish group wishes to erect a public menorah during the period.

What the anti-nativity scene agitators claim however is that because ONLY a nativity display is permitted this indicates government sanction or support for advancing ONLY Christianity when this is in most cases simply factually untrue. The usual reason that such displays are the only ones seen during the Christmas season is that the Christmas season is a public celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ and Christians wishing to freely express those religious beliefs are the only ones who apply for permission to erect a free-speech protected religious display. The fact that nobody else applies to erect some other kind of display does not mean that the government that permits the Christian display is favoring Christianity, which is unlawful. It just means that nobody else applied.

And where others HAVE applied to put up holiday displays, specifically including anti-theist Atheist displays and Satanist displays, such displays have been permitted under the same conditions as the traditional nativity displays.

So, the problem is not favoritism on the part of government when it comes to Christian-themed religiously-oriented displays of free speech, it's merely that Christians comprise the majority of the citizenry and happen to be active in exercising their right to free speech and exercise of their religion in the public square and none of the other religious groups in the area care to do the same. If they did, then they would be permitted the same sort of uses of public property, which is what the Constitution requires...and ALL that the Constitution requires.

[JimC]

People can make up their own mind about whether they want a particular set of policies, whether political, social or economic. They have no need to stick to your version of what is morality. If the majority decision goes against you, then suck it up, princess...

Fallacious appeal to common practice stated to evade the obvious fact that you're wrong and I'm right.

Arrogant wanker, aren't you...

[Seth]

People can make up their own mind about whether they want a particular set of policies, whether political, social or economic. They have no need to stick to your version of what is morality. If the majority decision goes against you, then suck it up, princess...

Fallacious appeal to common practice stated to evade the obvious fact that you're wrong and I'm right.

Arrogant wanker, aren't you...

Not really. You're the arrogant one for insisting that you're correct when it's patently obvious that you're not and I've proven it.

[JimC]

All I have said is that whether a given political policy is to be adopted (such as the degree of government regulation or taxation, for example) should be widely debated, and then placed into the political marketplace to sink or swim on its merits as assessed by enfranchised citizens. (With the usual proviso of some sort of base-line legal or constitutional framework to prevent excessive government interference with legitimate human rights)

I thought you believed in free markets?

And by the way, tell me about the vast number of Libertarian candidates who have been elected to office in the USA...

[pErvinalia]

People can make up their own mind about whether they want a particular set of policies, whether political, social or economic. They have no need to stick to your version of what is morality. If the majority decision goes against you, then suck it up, princess...

Fallacious appeal to common practice stated to evade the obvious fact that you're wrong and I'm right.

Adapt or die.

[Brian Peacock]

ecularism is not common ground and is not the default condition that society is obliged to honor.

This is particularly true in the United States, where "secularism" is strictly limited in its authority to interfere with non-secular activities, motives and political agendas.

The only things that are required to remain "secular" in the US are government agencies and agents. That being said, it's a bit more complex than that because not only must government remain "secular" it [sic] its operations, it must also remain religiously neutral in such operations. What this means in practice, and according to Supreme Court ruling, is that the operations of government, where they intersect with religion in any way, are not permitted to either advance or inhibit the free exercise of religion by members of the public. Moreover, as I have said, government also has an affirmative constitutional duty to physically and administratively protect the free exercise of religion by all persons. This is why the fire-bombing of black churches in the south are matters of federal interest that trigger the FBi's authority to investigate what would otherwise be merely a state arson investigation.

The right of minority parishioners to freely exercise their religious rights free of threats and intimidation by bigots and racists in hoods and robes is a federally-protected constitutional right, and where such threats and intimidation are occurring and can be rationally tied to deliberate attempts to interfere with the civil rights of blacks, it becomes a matter of federal jurisdiction and the federal government is obliged to take action to protect those religious rights.

The same would be true if "Christian terrorists" were bombing Freedom From Religion Foundation buildings to intimidate Atheists.

As to "the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone," this is to some extent absolutely true because it is a universal fact that all laws, everywhere, are nothing more than the codification of the ethical and moral beliefs and practices of the culture in which they have evolved. And because quite literally every culture on earth, including Cuba and Communist China have as a foundation of their laws ethical and moral concepts and practices that flow largely very directly from the religious beliefs of the culture of the community, it is therefore true that "the religious are legislating a religious morality which is applied to everyone."

So what? As a member of a democratic socialist society you necessarily submit to the ethical and moral decisions of the majority, and as it happens the majority of people worldwide hold religious beliefs and base their ethical and moral structure on those beliefs, so you and your quest for universal secularism are just totally screwed...and always have been.

The best an Atheist can hope for is a societal framework that balances the need for secular government with the right of the people to have their religion inform their decisions and influence their government policies. In the US this is called "The Constitution," and it provides just such a balance.

As I said, secularism is not common ground to which everyone, or indeed anyone, is obliged to tread. In a civilized and diverse society however secularism is something that government and its agents is obliged to tread in it's relations with the people of the society that it serves.

And this is why we have the "Lemon Test" as a guide for government in balancing the inherent right of the people to have their religious moral beliefs inform their laws and social structures and the right of everyone to a government that does not rule or regulate based solely upon some particular religious doctrine...as is the case with Islam and Sharia law.

As I said - you don't really get secularism.

Secularism isn't anti-religious, nor does it stand in opposition to religious freedoms (both freedoms from and to). In fact secularism is the only principle that secures religious freedoms for all by maintaining the principle that no particular religion holds no particular sway in public affairs - and certainly holds no sway over any other religion, or over the non-religious. Although many atheist would also count themselves as secular also, secularism is not the preserve of the non-religious and can be, and sometimes is, fully consistent with a religious outlook. So, secularism pertains not only to religious neutrality in public affairs but the principle that the conditionalities of religious members do not and cannot be applied all. The only people who maintain that secularism stands in opposition to religion are those among the religious who believe that a state of self-declared religiosity (which invariably means their religious tradition or nomination) is, should be, or must be afforded special rights, treatments, privileges, exemptions, status, or regard.

The court system is, by nature and definition, a public affair. Religion has no place in dictating or defining (specifically religious) moral obligations or laying down or enforcing (specifically religious) laws which, again by nature and definition, must apply to all equally regardless of religious status.

[pErvinalia]

Seth is just babbling to distract from the fact that he's most avowedly not a secularist. Anyone who supports Donald Trump is not a secularist. Not that we needed the Donald to know that about Seth.

[Brian Peacock]

Ays, it appears that holding forth on political theory and constitutional literalism, like in so many other threads, is an effective way to bait others into avoiding the issues at hand. I wonder what would happen if we all suddenly decided to ignore the off-topic derailments? Would the forum just implode perhaps, or would it bring back the atmosphere of old, and maybe some absent friends along with it?