Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think it's full of it. Now I'm not going to get into any discussion about Bush so don't sweat it. If anything I'm a little annoyed with the supreme court.


Now, everytime I say "I'd like to exercise my religious beleifs by stopping an abortion" for the sake of arguement I usually notice the following:


(...pro lifer b could argue the same thing to pro choicer a, though.)


But what is a religion? Has the law defined it clearly? Probably not. At least I've been searching for a legal definition from the supreme court that has been clearly outlined and have found nothing.


Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines religion as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Religion doesn't need to have a beleif in a higher power (Hence why athiesm is currently a religion). As such virtually anything we beleive and do agreed upon by a group of other people qualifies as religion.

Our country says "seperation of church and state." As in, we're supposed to be protected from religion being shoved down our throats in this country.... but all the court has to do is sidestep around if a specific organization/ group of people with similar beleifs are truly are religious, and they go scott free. Their members able to force whatever beleif system they have on the rest of the country. Evolution? Sure! Scientific method? Go ahead! Creationism? Ugh religion booo. BOOOO! Our laws have a lot of secularism within them, and that could qualify as a religion. I don't see our laws getting changed to stop appeasing secularism.

So now to relate this to abortion: The idea of "bodily integrity" and the moral correctness of an abortion for instance is a beleif and with that beleif is behavior associated with it that is agreed upon/condoned by a group of other people. This could qualify for a religion. But to admit that it is a religious beleif (as well as secularism in our laws) would make our blindly idealistic establishment clause be shown for what it is: Full of crap.

I do not beleive in human bodily integrity-- the beleif that the body of a woman belongs to her and she has every right therefore to do what she wants with it. Including an abortion if she doesn't want the fetus (because it is beleived that infringes on her right to bodily integrity because her body is providing functions she doesn't want.)

What do I beleive in? I beleive that every body belongs to God. Not as in every soul, rather I beleive that our bodies belong to God. I am Christian and reading my bible it says I'm supposed to rescue those being led to the slaughter. I can't condone a fetus being killed. Especially when it's not to save the mother's life. Shouldn't I be going into the abortion clinic and actively stopping abortions? I can't. Even if I had the phsyical strength to fight all the doctors and security, I'd eventually be caught, exauhsted and perseucted for expressing my beleifs. Our silent newaged religion pounds at my ability to exercise my beleifs, so that the beleivers in it can be express theirs.


"But with secularism, and less theistic religions we have more freedoms"

More freedoms don't necessarily have to register to people as better. I could argue Mary Jane's religion argues the freedoms in the constitution AND the ability to rape or kill someone. Mary Jane's religion has more freedoms, so everyone should follow her now, right?

Many pro choicers also seem to have the misonception that the law as it stands now allows people to be free. They won't be killed or persecuted for their beleifs. They won't be tortured.

So you can't be put to death for going against the beleifs that run rampant in our laws? Yes you can. Going against those beleifs is called breaking the law. The punishment of refference is called the death penalty.

Can you be tortured? Again Police brutality. Prison.

In reality, this is only true if you hold the moral structure of someone who beleives in secularism, or whatever religious beleifs can be found within our law. I've said it once and will say it again: The less you agree with the moral majority and their laws, the more oppressed and alone you feel. I honestly don't think people understand that they've oppressed others, all the while complaining that if their beleifs were in office they'd oppress everyone. Ironic isn't it? Where is the empathy? They claim pro lifers only care about the child and not the mother. I could argue they care only about themselves, executing their religious beleifs and those that agree with them. Not a care about who disagrees, and who their opinions opress. It feels somewhat hypocritical in a way. All this back and fourth involving the pot calling the kettle black.



The establshment clause to me is just a load of BS to oppress religions and sidestep over the ones of the government's preference.

True. The definition DID say a "set" of beleifs AND practices upheld by a group. But even still, it wouldn't be that hard to find a common moral code within the pro choice community, and the things they practice or condone. The way I see it you don't have to practice something in order to be apart of the religion. Just condone it. Catholics for intance don't necessarily have to undergo every sacrament but they beleive others should have the right to if they and the church beleive it is right. They also beleive in the what the chuch teaches.

Most pro choicers (all I've come across) Beleive in the concept of bodily integrity of a woman, and they beleive in the concept of personhood (standardized human value), in most cases the standardizing of quality of life, the abomination of adoption agencies, pregnancy needing to be wanted, and the (idealistic idea...well I think it is) that a wanted baby will be a baby that doesn't suffer. Now do they like Catholics have to actually have an abortion? No. But they should condone it to be pro choice.



This is interestingly enough a similar comment I have received from pro choicers when discussing the matter. That their beleif system is in the best interest of society. Now I am black, but I will say that the idea that not killing off one another and so fourth being best for society is an opinion. Someone else could argue that "blacks that don't pull their weight and take money from unemployment when it could go to people who do work, could benefit society." Its opinion that holds the best interests of society like the former. While I can choose to agree with either, there is no fact.




"People" wouldn't be getting hurt in this situation as personhood would be removed from them in order to legalize murd--oh I mean killing. I think if the government did that pro choicers would at the very least stop using the law as defense for their cause and explore the morality of the issue more.

All it does is standardize what humans get what rights. Personhood allows everyone to beleive into the delusion that they will be safe from discrimination and being put below someone. All the while actively standardizing worth as a human. Land for the free my rear end.

3nodding I was going to mention the same thing. Laws will really always come from majority opinion.

The needs and wants of the many out weigh the needs and wants of the few. By listneing to the minority, the government thratens to turn itself upside down. No...it already is upside down. They now threaten to turn themselves inside out.