If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that abortion is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-abortion Christians? Why can't anti-abortion Christians advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

[RobL2415]

Discuss.

And yes, I posted this on r/Christianity already.

[Black Tourmaline]

a bit of a leading question there

[Rockblossom]

Well, obviously they can because they do.  And they can because the First Amendment to the Constitution  protects their rights to free speech and religious belief, just as it should.  And a right to abortion does not force any of them have one.  What they do not have  a right to do is impose that belief on others, because those others  also have a right to religious belief and expression.   

[Karst]

I don't agree with their beliefs, but I think that all people should have the freedom to vote against, protest, etc. a law or government decision that they consider unethical.  If you want to have a right for yourself, you have to be willing to accept people whose positions you're against also having it.

[AspieAlly613]

Because of the protected right to petition the government.  If they think that a fetus is a human life, they are welcome to try to convince anyone else, in and out of the judiciary system.

[RobL2415]

26 minutes ago, AspieAlly613 said:

Because of the protected right to petition the government.  If they think that a fetus is a human life, they are welcome to try to convince anyone else, in and out of the judiciary system.

I'm not disputing this. What I am questioning is why some Christians cannot acknowledge that not everyone is Christian, not everyone believes that God has authority, and that the government of the US is secular and cannot endorse a religion? The matter of religion should have no bearing on the debate over the or legality of abortion.

 

People are free to view abortion from whatever moral angle they see fit. The majority believe that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before viability of the fetus. This country is ruled by the majority. If Christianity is not compatible with that, then that is not a reason to make it illegal for everyone.

[RobL2415]

32 minutes ago, Karst said:

I don't agree with their beliefs, but I think that all people should have the freedom to vote against, protest, etc. a law or government decision that they consider unethical.  If you want to have a right for yourself, you have to be willing to accept people whose positions you're against also having it.

Their freedom of religion is not at issue with me. What is is their assertion that their religion ought to dictate what a non-religious government ought to do.

[RobL2415]

51 minutes ago, Rockblossom said:

And they can because the First Amendment to the Constitution  protects their rights to free speech and religious belief, just as it should.

Again, I'm not disputing this.

[RoseGoesToYale]

So, the US government isn't actually secular at all (and why would it be, it was founded by religious men and our governing documents have not changed in over 230 years). A lot of people think that the first amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the right to believe whatever you believe and that it separates religion from government, but they don't actually read what the text says.

 

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The first part of this sentence refers to Congress. Congress shall "make no law", meaning that a law cannot be passed in the federal legislature that says "This is the official religion of the United States of America." There are other ways to respect an establishment of religion without having it in legal print, and there are hoards of examples. "In God We Trust", "One nation under God", court witnesses being made to swear on the Christian Bible or else face juror and judge bias for not being Christian, "so help me God" in the Oath of Allegiance. There are no laws anywhere mandating these things, not even the Bible in court one, they're just allowed to exist, and without a law to challenge against they cannot be challenged in court as violating the first amendment, much to the chagrin of Atheists and Neopagans everywhere.

 

It should also be noted that the text only refers to Congress, not the judiciary branch. Just as there's nothing to stop the president from discrimination on the basis of religious or spiritual beliefs when appointing a Supreme Court judge (he can appoint whoever he wants to without having to disclose his biases), there's nothing to stop judges from making rulings in line with their own religious beliefs. They only need cite legal precedent. To date, there has never been e.g. an Atheist, Satanic, Neopagan, Muslim, Buddhist or Sikh Supreme Court judge, just like there has never been an Atheist, Satanic, Neopagan, Muslim, Buddhist or Sikh president. Christian presidents are allowed to appoint Christian judges who can, in turn, interpret US law and the constitution in a Christian way, citing legal precedent where Christian political views came out favorably. It is not considered a conflict of interest for a judge to preside over a case involving an issue that their religion may or may not have an opinion on.

 

The text also doesn't refer to the president, either. The president has the power to pass presidential actions (which the Supreme Court has the power to declare unconstitutional) and veto legislation (but not constitutional amendments...). If the president passes a presidential action that benefits Christian interests, and it needn't have the word "church" or "Christian" in it, and the Supreme Court is filled with Christian judges who happen to not particularly be offended by that, the odds are pretty high that at least 2/3rds of the government can remain connected to the church without breaking any laws.

 

Here's where we get to the second part of the sentence. "Thereof" refers to religion in the previous clause. As per the former clause, a law cannot be passed in the federal legislature that prohibits a person from exercising their religion. The first problem we run into is what counts as a religion. Christianity is a religion. A person who is a practicing Christian is protected by this law. Atheism, by contrast, is not a religion. It's not even clear if atheism is a spiritual belief because it is a lack of belief in deities, but the text doesn't mention spiritual beliefs anyway. Atheism is not protected by the first amendment. By dictionary definition, religion includes worship or practice, but this definition isn't enough to firmly establish what counts as religion. I mention Satanism up there specifically because The Satanic Temple holds abortion as right for Satanists involving a specific ritual. However there are people, especially Christians, who claim that Satanism is not a real religion and that the Temple is not a valid religious entity that it's a joke religion mocking Christianity. If a Satanist launched a lawsuit on reproductive rights that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the court would have to determine if The Satanic Temple is a religion. It could take a while depending on who the judges are, and a pregnant person might be forced to give birth by the time the court decides Satanism is a religion. But, as I said, there have been no Satanic Supreme Court judges. Most have been Christian. The judges can easily rule that Satanism isn't a religion without having to explain to anyone the giant conflict of interest that is ruling wether a temple founded on their religion's mortal enemy is a real religion. An appeal would useless at that point anyway, and you cant very well claim your right to abortion was denied when you were never pregnant; such lawsuits are always started by people already pregnant and thus denied an abortion, and depending on what their home state's laws are, they may only have a measly 15 weeks to legally establish whether their religion is a religion.

 

Oh! It should also be noted that abortion is NOT a right in United States. The Supreme Court established a legal precedent that the federal constitution protects women's freedom to have an abortion without excessive government regulation (what counts as "excessive" is up to the particular Christians in power and in court at a given time). There is nothing written in the federal constitution establishing abortion as right, nor granting full equality before the law on the basis of sex or gender as ERA was never ratified. "State's rights" could easily be invoked to usurp the federal constitution, as well as to get Roe v Wade overturned if the Supreme Court judges are majority Republican or pro-life, in which case abortion would automatically become illegal in 18 states.

 

I'd like to end with an example of non-American constitutional text that is effective in eliminating legal ambiguity regarding freedom of religion and conscience and separation of church and state. The following are quotes from the constitution of the Czech Republic, written in 1993 and translated into English. Chapter 1 Article 3, emphasis mine:

Quote

1. Everyone is guaranteed the enjoyment of her [sic.] fundamental rights and basic freedoms without regard to gender, race, color of skin, language, faith and religion, political or other conviction, national or social origin, membership in a national or ethnic minority, property, birth, or other status.

And Article 15:

Quote

1. The freedom of thought, conscience, and religious conviction is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to change her [sic.] religion or faith or to be non-denominational.

3. No one may be compelled to perform military service if such is contrary to his conscience or religious conviction. Detailed provisions shall be laid down in a law.

And Article 16:

Quote

2. Churches and religious societies govern their own affairs; in particular, they establish their own bodies and appoint their clergy, as well as found religious orders and other church institutions, independent of state authorities.

The Czech Republic has the highest share of secular and irreligious people of any country.

[RoseGoesToYale]

Sorry, I know I've written enough already, but I remembered something. The Christian Bible states that life begins at first breath, when God "breathes your soul" into you. Before that point, an unborn baby is an empty vessel (which explains why so many abortions via providence happened in the Bible). So I have no idea where all the "life begins at conception" stuff came from.

[Sally]

Anti-abortion Christians do not believe that a secular government should have the right to allow abortions, because they believe that what they interpret as God's laws supercede governmental laws.   Many believe that the US is a Christian nation (Justice Scalia believed that) and they must try to force recognition of that. 

 

 

[Virelai]

2 minutes ago, Sally said:

Anti-abortion Christians do not believe that a secular government should have the right to allow abortions, because they believe that what they interpret as God's laws supercede governmental laws.   Many believe that the US is a Christian nation (Justice Scalia believed that) and they must try to force recognition of that. 

 

 

So, to many, a nation of freedom of religion is incompatible with Christian belief.

 

That makes a lot of what we're seeing make sense. But it's really sad. Things are so much clearer from outside the religion, of how Christians are trying to make everyone abide by (what they say are, anyway) their religion's laws. It's a direct threat to religious freedom, yet... they somehow have people believing that they are defending religious freedom. Somehow taking away religious freedom is their religious freedom. Something's gone very wrong.

[EmeraldIce]

Ultimately, it's because they believe their advocacy is saving lives. To them, respecting people's rights to abortion is akin to respecting people's rights to murder without consequence when they have a choice to save the victims. While the pro-life agenda is filled with flaws, the premises are not that hard to comprehend.

 

But yes, people should stop using God as a reason and justification for everything.

[Sally]

4 hours ago, Virelai said:

they somehow have people believing that they are defending religious freedom. 

To them, religious freedom consists of their freedom to force their religious beliefs on others. 

[RobL2415]

9 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

court witnesses being made to swear on the Christian Bible or else face juror and judge bias for not being Christian,

This no longer happens in any state that I'm aware of. Likewise, the POTUS is not required to be sworn in on a Bible. It's been done out of tradition, but they could put their hand on whatever book they want, or no book at all

 

. It could be a porn magazine for all we know. God is not mentioned in the oath of office for POTUS, either.

 

Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for elected and appointed officials to public office, and is bound to the states by the 14th Amendment.

 

10 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

there's nothing to stop judges from making rulings in line with their own religious beliefs.

Judges are bound by the law to make rulings as a matter of law, not of their religion. Judges who rulings out of religious bias can be sanctioned or even removed from the bench.

 

The US Supreme Court may be an exception to that, however, as they set their own rules of conduct and there's debate on if Congress has the power to set those rules for them. But for all other lower federal courts, state courts, county and municipal courts, Congress and state legislatures can impose regulations on their conduct.

 

10 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Atheism, by contrast, is not a religion.

The Free Exercise clause would imply that one is free to participate or not participate in religion. Both theism and atheism are protected by it.

 

10 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

It should also be noted that abortion is NOT a right in United States.

It most certainly is a right, as SCOTUS applied the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, specifically the right to privacy, to the issue of abortion and found that a woman has the right to terminate pregnancy without government interference, prior to the fetus becoming viable (as decided in Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

 

And even if it were not a right at the federal level, states may guarantee additional rights to citizens that are not enumerated in the Constitution (see Ninth Amendment). Several states have the right to abortion in their constitution or codified in state law.

10 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

There is nothing written in the federal constitution establishing abortion as right, nor granting full equality before the law on the basis of sex or gender as ERA was never ratified.

SCOTUS has the power to determine whether a non-written right is enumerated in the Constitution, and the precedent they set is just as binding as what was written.

 

Discrimination on the basis of gender in places of public accommodation and within the government is illegal though the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other legislation. Just because it isn't explicitly written down in the Constitution doesn't mean we don't have any legal protection.

[uhtred]

Anti-abortion Christians consider abortion to be child murder.   A crime so terrible that they cannot accept the governments decision.  Imagine if the government legalized something you consider horrible, say slavery.  Would you feel you have to go along with their decision?

 

I don't agree with anti-abortion christians, and I'm very much in favor of legal, safe and available abortions, but I do understand their point of view

[Rockblossom]

25 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Imagine if the government legalized something you consider horrible, say slavery.  Would you feel you have to go along with their decision?

Some states are trying to pass laws outlawing abortion completely, even when it is the result of rape.  So they want men to be able to rape and impregnate unwilling females, then use their bodies to grow the fetus.  How is that not slavery/involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th Amendment?   Of course, the Constitution is merely a human invention, while they follow a "higher power" as defined in the Christian Bible.  And there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery.  So, yes, I am horrified by them, and all of their enablers, and I would not "go along" with such a law.  That's one of the reasons that I, a life-long Independent, will not vote for another Republican, ever.

 

For info, Pew Research published new survey results last June that shows about 70% of  Americans don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/17/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/

[EmeraldIce]

51 minutes ago, Rockblossom said:

Some states are trying to pass laws outlawing abortion completely, even when it is the result of rape.  So they want men to be able to rape and impregnate unwilling females, then use their bodies to grow the fetus.  How is that not slavery/involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th Amendment?

Being pro-life is not akin to supporting rape. It's saying that rape may be wrong, but the child is innocent. You can describe raping and involuntary impregnation as slavery, sure, but that doesn't mean said slavery should be legal or accepted in the eyes of pro-lifers. The abortion debate has less to do with who the sperm comes from and more to do with women and the fetuses. What to do with the men is, I believe, a completely separate issue.

[Tetus]

1 hour ago, EmeraldIce said:

Being pro-life is not akin to supporting rape. It's saying that rape may be wrong, but the child is innocent. You can describe raping and involuntary impregnation as slavery, sure, but that doesn't mean said slavery should be legal or accepted in the eyes of pro-lifers. The abortion debate has less to do with who the sperm comes from and more to do with women and the fetuses. What to do with the men is, I believe, a completely separate issue.

Yes, context is pointless.

 

While this line of argumentation is correct in a very pedantic kind of way, when applied to the real world, there are women who are impregnated against their will, and often times this is the explicit goal of the ‘source of the sperm’ as you so clinically put it. Making abortion illegal means that the law defends the rapist’s wishes over that of the victim in these cases. So while anti-abortion activists may pay lip service to the condemnation of rape, the policy they are advocating for expressly harms the victims and protects the rapist’s ability to inflict their will on someone else’s body.

You don’t get to continently fail to examine the effects of a law just because you think your heart is in the right place.

[uhtred]

4 hours ago, Rockblossom said:

Some states are trying to pass laws outlawing abortion completely, even when it is the result of rape.  So they want men to be able to rape and impregnate unwilling females, then use their bodies to grow the fetus.  How is that not slavery/involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th Amendment?   Of course, the Constitution is merely a human invention, while they follow a "higher power" as defined in the Christian Bible.  And there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery.  So, yes, I am horrified by them, and all of their enablers, and I would not "go along" with such a law.  That's one of the reasons that I, a life-long Independent, will not vote for another Republican, ever.

 

For info, Pew Research published new survey results last June that shows about 70% of  Americans don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/17/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/

Case A:  A fetus is part of the mother.   In that case the mother has  100% rigth to do whatever she wishes with her body, including removing and destroying the fetus.

 

Case B: A fetus is a human being.  Then the mother has no more right to kill it than she has to kill a toddler.

 

I know of now unbaised way to determine if something is a "human being".  It has human  DNA (but so do my toenails).  It does not have a fully developed brain ( but neither does an infant).  

 

For my self, I select "B" because I personally believe that results in a better world. I think given that there is uncertainty, causing an unwanted child to be born into the world, and a mother who doesn't want that child to carry it, is bad.  BUT.. I completely see and sympathize with the other side.  I cannot fault people who believe "A".  and I understand their point is that if A is true, then we are committing murder on a horrific scale.

 

Some moral questions do not have unique answers.

 

I will vote to protect abortion rights, and feel completely morally safe doing, so, but I realize my opponents are equally convinced of the rightness of their path

 

There happens to be a correlation between Christianity and position on abortion, but abortion is not really a religious issue. Its all down to what is considered "human".   I'm also not a christian, but I have no objections to their beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on others.

 

 

 

[uhtred]

BTW, I've never understood the rape exception for abortion laws.  Anyone who believes a fetus is a person and should be protected, should believe that no matter how the fetus was conceived.  I understand allowing abortion. I understand wanting to ban abortion, but I cannot understand this justification from any moral basis.

[ElloryJaye]

Many of those "Christians" are not acting in good faith.  Forbidding abortions is their way of demonstrating authority over people they consider "lesser" and "sinners", specifically women who have had sex, by punishing them.  If they were genuinely interested in saving the fetuses, there are much better ways of doing it than protesting abortions.

 

It's about power (and sexism), in other words.  If the people heading these movements force the government to do what they want, they gain power.  People who want power don't care about being polite or playing by the rules.

 

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, ElloryJaye said:

Many of those "Christians" are not acting in good faith.  Forbidding abortions is their way of demonstrating authority over people they consider "lesser" and "sinners", specifically women who have had sex, by punishing them.  If they were genuinely interested in saving the fetuses, there are much better ways of doing it than protesting abortions.

 

It's about power (and sexism), in other words.  If the people heading these movements force the government to do what they want, they gain power.  People who want power don't care about being polite or playing by the rules.

 

I prefer to assume people are acting in good faith, because otherwise rational discussion become impossible. There is always a dark interpretation of any suggested policy if you assume the person suggesting it is acting in bad faith. In particular any restriction on behavior can always be cast as an attempt to "control" people.

 

The argument about "better way to do X" also applies to things the left cares about very much.  Ideology is rarely rational. 

 

I'm sure some people do argue in bad faith, but I don't see how to have a discussion if that is assumed.

[Sally]

11 minutes ago, uhtred said:

I'm sure some people do argue in bad faith, but I don't see how to have a discussion if that is assumed.

Perhaps discussion cannot be had when people obviously argue in bad faith.  To leave the issue of abortion for the moment, would you say that Republicans -- and Trump himself -- are arguing in good faith when they state that he actually won the election in 2020?

[uhtred]

35 minutes ago, Sally said:

Perhaps discussion cannot be had when people obviously argue in bad faith.  To leave the issue of abortion for the moment, would you say that Republicans -- and Trump himself -- are arguing in good faith when they state that he actually won the election in 2020?

I think some Republicans believe it - incorrectly.  I think that is different because its an argument over a fact, not an argument about some policy.   I see abortion as similar to arguments over affirmitive action,  immigration policy, gun rights, economic policies etc.   It is possible for reasonable people to disagree, and we can only discuss if we assume good faith.

If people are discussing "why" they believe one side or the other won teh election, that could be in good faith.  If its just stated as fact, then its not really a discussion.  (even if the fact stated is correct)

 

That said, certain individuals do not argue in good faith, and I see a lot of evidece that Trump is one of those.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Christianity and abortion rights are most likely fundamentally incompatible, just as Christianity and other religions generally are.

 

I think part of the problem hearkens back to the age old problem almost inextricably linked to Christianity (and I suspect to Islam as well). The divine command to expand their religion and assert their way of life precludes a peaceful coexisting with non-Christian people, at least for those who read the passages that way.

 

I do not hold any ill will towards Christians individually not universal contempt for the faith. In fact, I have a certain level of admiration for many who practice it despite my deep theological opposition to it. Ultimately my stance on Christianity as a Satanist mirrors my stance on government as a libertarian...I see it as a beneficial and useful but inherently dangerous thing that the world will always have a place for, but that must always be kept in check. 

[JimmyJazz]

Denial of the right to choose is something the United States of America has long derided other nations for. You can’t champion yourself as a bastion of democracy and then tell your citizens that if they want an abortion they best go to the state they fought to be independent from. It is fundamentally third world to restrict options from the civilians. 

[Phalena]

If anti-abortionists respected women instead of harrassing them and ellbowing into things that don't concern them then the world would be a little bit better.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

23 hours ago, JimmyJazz said:

Denial of the right to choose is something the United States of America has long derided other nations for. You can’t champion yourself as a bastion of democracy and then tell your citizens that if they want an abortion they best go to the state they fought to be independent from. It is fundamentally third world to restrict options from the civilians. 

Interestingly the United States is not really a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. In a true democracy the majority would dictate the legality or illegality of abortion, there'd be little to no talk of "rights" in the way we presently do. While our leadership is democratically elected (directly or indirectly) and some of our decisions are made democratically, we have representative government (therefore are republican in nature) and a constitution that is the supreme law of the land (hence the descriptor "constitutional").

 

Telling anyone anything not in line with the will of the majority is inherently undemocratic, but frankly I find that to be a good thing. Democracy is becoming something of a platitude, often espoused most vigorously by those who seem either willfully ignorant or simply too stupid to know that they do not truly support it.

[Gloomy]

I agree that if someone is pro-life they need a better argument than “because god said so”. I was pro-life until I was like 17, but became agnostic at 16 and atheist at 17. I can’t quite remember if I was still pro-life by the time I became an atheist, but there was definitely a time when I was simultaneously pro-life and agnostic. Hell even when I was still a Christian I never said “because god said so” as a reason I was against abortion. So it’s definitely possible to argue against abortion without bringing religion into it.